Darvocet and Darvon

Posted by: Nathan Morris

November 2010

Have you or someone you know been taking DARVOCET or DARVON as a painkiller? Even though it is not a strong pain management drug, it is alleged to be highly addictive. DARVOCET and DARVON contain the ingredient PROPOXYPHENE which the FDA has recently pulled off the market because of alleged links to fatal heart rhythm abnormalities. In explaining its decision to recall the drugs DAVARCET and DARVON, the FDA stated that the drugs "put[] patients at risk of potentially serious or even fatal heart rhythms." They have been associated with a large number of deaths.

Christensen Law Offices is currently helping individuals who have been harmed by the drugs DARVOCET and DARVON to assess their legal options and potentially take action. If you are currently taking DARVOCET or DARVON, call your doctor immediately and then contact Christensen Law Offices if you have experienced these side effects. If someone you know is taking or has taken DARVOCET of DARVON or their family member has been harmed by the drugs, encourage them to do the same

Avandia and Accutane

Posted by: Nathan Morris

September 2010

AVANDIA diabetes drug allegedly linked to stroke, and other life threatening side effects:

Avandia has been a popular drug for the treatment of Diabetes. Avandia works as an insulin sensitizer. GlaxoSmithKline has marketed the drug in the United States where sales peaked in 2006 until word of the adverse and potentially deadly side-effects surfaced. Reported side effects include bone fractures, eye damage, hepatoxicity, and even death from stroke and heart disease. Reports allege that GlaxoSmithKline knew about many of these dangers and failed to properly and appropriately warn the public.

If you or someone you know has taken Avandia and experienced any of the side effects including stroke or heart disease, reach out to Christensen Law. We are zealously advocating for those who have been injured by this drug.



ACCUTANE acne drug allegedly associated with Crohn’s Disease, Inflamatory Bowel Disease among others:

Accutane has been one of the most widely used acne medications in Southern Nevada since the early 1990’s. Unknown to most who took the drug were the real risks allegedly known by Accutane’s manufacturer LaRoche. Thousands have claimed to have been afflicted with Accutane’s side effects including such severe and debilitating diseases as Crohn’s Disease and Inflamatory Bowell Disease. In many cases, people have been unaware what has been causing their sickness as the diseases may take years to manifest themselves.

If you or someone you know took Accutane and is now suffering serious side effects or has been diagnosed with Crohn’s disease or Inflamatory Bowell Disease, Christensen Law is here to help bring your life back.

Loan Modification Programs

Posted by: Nathan Morris

September 2010

BANK of AMERICA and CITI LOAN MODIFICATION TRIAL programs fraud allegations:

Have you placed your hopes on a trial loan modification program that temporarily reduced your monthly payments only to find out that you had been denied and subjected to further fees, accelerated payments, and ruined credit? Some banks have been alleged to have defrauded homeowners by offering trial loan modifications with no real intention of offering a permanent modification to the homeowner.

Christensen Law is fighting for homeowners who have been thrust into a worse financial condition after being denied a permanent modification through no fault of their own. I you or someone you know has been denied a trial loan modification through no fault of your own and would like someone to review your case, Christensen Law is here to help you.

Charite Artificial Disc Implants

Posted by: Nathan Morris

September, 2010

CHARITE ARTIFICIAL DISC IMPLANTS allegedly associated with disabling side effects:

Have you or someone you know been implanted with an artificial disc implant during back surgery? Many of those seriously injured in automobile accidents have had to endure subsequent back surgeries. Many of those surgeries involve implants that are supposed to promote stability or pain management. Recently, Christensen Law began helping those who have actually been harmed by their disc implants. In 2004 Johnson & Johnson began selling Charite Artificial Spinal Discs through their Depuy Spine Unit. The artificial discs are designed and marketed as functioning to reduce the need for spinal fusion and other serious spinal surgeries. Unfortunately, allegations of life threatening side effects being linked with the Charite artificial discs have come to light. Christensen Law is working with those on the front line to make things right.

If you or someone you know has been injured by an artificial disc implant and would like our firm to review your case, call Christensen Law immediately. Something must be done.

Need a Treatment Plan? Ask Your Doctor.

Need a Treatment Plan? Ask Your Doctor.

Posted by: Chris Hays
February 18, 2009
Topic: Treatment

Treating

Often, after a collision, people find themselves wondering: when should I see a doctor?

The answer, flippant though it may appear, is that you should see a doctor as soon as you need one. If you are in pain or otherwise feel like you need a doctor immediately following the collision, then you should see a doctor immediately following the collision. If you do not feel the effects of the collision until several days thereafter (which is quite common), go to the doctor then. Here’s the point: your potential personal injury claim should have no bearing on your decision to get medical treatment.

Overtreating

Another question I hear a lot is this: When should I stop treating?

Whenever a client comes to me with this question, I answer it with a question of my own: Are you still feeling pain? There are two reasons a person should stop treating after a collision: (1) you should stop treating when you feel better and your doctor releases you, and (2) you should stop treating when your doctor tells you that you are at the peak of your recovery. Your personal injury claim should be neither a boon nor a hindrance to your recovery plan.

A client recently said to me, “Well, I just don’t want to hurt my case. I’ll keep going to the doctor if you think I should.” This client’s concern is understandable, and comes up with some frequency. It’s natural for people outside the system to equate more treatment with more money. The reality, however, is that judges and juries compensate plaintiffs for injuries, not for treatment. While it is true that the court will review medical records and bills to determine the extent of a plaintiff’s injuries, it is unwise to artificially extent treatment to make an injury look worse. The legal system is too sophisticated to be messed with in this way. Because of tactics employed by less-than-scrupulous plaintiffs and attorneys, judges and juries are wary of plaintiffs who have “overtreated,” i.e., sought medical care not for recovery purposes, but solely for the purpose of bolstering a personal injury claim. Moreover, courts look with disdain on plaintiffs that attempt to make a claim bigger than it should be. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a jury in Nevada to award an amount less than the plaintiff’s medical bills because the jury was convinced that the plaintiff overtreated.

Undertreating

Medical treatment is not fun. Often, it’s uncomfortable, inconvenient and embarrassing. So don’t do it any more than you have to.

That said, undertreating is possibly even worse than overtreating, and maybe just as common. Just last week, a client told me that he treated with a doctor for a while and felt better, so he stopped treating. Then, two months after he stopped treating, the pain came back. The client wanted to know if he should start treating again. I started with a brief discussion of the first point, above: you should see a doctor if you need a doctor. Then I had to tell the client about the “gap.” Unlike overtreating, gaps in treatment can have a significant impact on the value of a claim; and the impact is negative.

A gap in treatment raises all sorts of damaging questions with the jury: Why did the plaintiff stop treating if she was actually hurt? Did something other than the collision lead to the second bout of treatment? What was the plaintiff doing during the time he was not treating? Did the plaintiff think his claim would be more valuable if he started treating again? In short, gaps in treatment are troublesome to the jury.

So what does this all mean for you? It means you should see a doctor as soon as you think you are hurt. It means you should stop seeing the doctor no sooner and no later than when you are as recovered as you can be. As a general rule, it is best to treat until the doctor releases you, for the health of your case and, more importantly, for your own health. In any event, your lawyer cannot be the one to make these decisions (but please keep us in the loop).

And one other thing

This article from the December 2008 Wall Street Journal underscores one of the points that my colleague, David Sampson, so eloquently made a couple weeks ago: make sure you have UM/UIM coverage! The article points out that as the economy worsens, more and more drivers are buying only the minimum liability insurance or are skipping the car insurance altogether. Thus, the worse the economy gets, the more important UM/UIM coverage becomes for you and your family. You can read David’s take on this point here.

I have full coverage insurance, don't I?

I have full coverage. Don't I? If you don't have UM/UIM you are not fully covered.

Previously posted by David F Sampson

When I meet a new client who has been involved in an auto accident I always ask them what kind of auto insurance they carry. The overwhelming answer is either "liability" or "full coverage". I think the phrases come from insurance agents who, when they give someone a quote for auto insurance, will often ask their customer, "do you want "liabillity" or "full coverage". Unfortunately your insurance agent will rarely explain what "liability" or "full coverage" mean. Even more unfortunate is that when most people purchase "full coverage" they do not get coverage that fully covers them. In fact "full coverage" quite often does not even come close to fully protecting you and the ones you love.

Let me start with liability coverage. Liability coverage is usually used to describe insurance coverage that will pay for damages you cause if you make a mistake and someone else is hurt or their car is damaged because of your mistake. For example: you are driving down the road and you are momentarily distracted by a child in the back seat. While you are distracted the car in front of you stops suddenly because a dog has run into the road. Because you are distracted you cannot stop your car in time and you plow into the car that stopped for the dog. Your liability coverage will pay to fix the other car. It will also pay the other person's lost wages, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other such damages caused by you.

Liabillity coverage is one of the most expensive kinds of insurance out there. Liability coverage is what most states require all drivers to carry by law. You can expect liability coverage to cost several hundred dollars per quarter.

"Full coverage" is generally used to describe coverage that will pay to fix your car whether you cause the accident or someone else causes the accident. The phrases "comprehensive coverage" or "collission coverage" are also used to describe "full coverage". Make no mistake about it, even though your agent may call it "full coverage" it does not cover you fully. In fact all it usually covers is your car. An example would be if someone hits your car (because they were distracted and your stopped suddenly because a dog ran out in the road) you can bring a claim against their insurance company to fix your car under their liability coverage. But if their insurance company delays paying your claim (which happens more often then you would think), or if the person who hits you does not have insurance (which also happens more often than you think), you can make a claim on your own insurance to fix your car now.

What is usually called "full coverage" will not pay your lost wages, medical expenses, pain and suffering, or any damages you suffer (other than car damage) as a result of damages caused by someone else. So the only thing fully covered if your car.

In order to make sure you and the ones you love are fully protected you need to know about two additional forms of coverage that, compared to liability coverage, are dirt cheap, and are the types of coverage that will protect you and your loved ones. When you purchase insurance you absolutely have to ask your insurance agent about these forms of coverage and what they cost. They are called "med-pay" and "uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage" (which if often called UM/UIM).

Med-Pay: Med-pay coverage pays for your medical expenses no matter who caused the accident. So whether you make a mistake or someone else makes a mistake, and you are injured, med-pay will pay for your medical bills up the the amount of med-pay coverage you have purchased. Most people buy $1,000.00 - $5,000.00 in med-pay coverage, which means their insurance will pay for $1,000.00 - $5,000.00 of their medical expenses if they are in an accident no matter who is at fault for the accident. Med-pay is nice to have and if a great benefit for those who purchase it, but it is more of a luxury than a necessity.

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage (UM/UIM Coverage): UM/UIM coverage pays your medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other such damages when someone else causes an accident. Uninsured Motorist coverage (UM) applies when the person who causes the accident does not have insurance (they are uninsured). If that happens your uninsured motorist coverage will pay for your damages up to the amount you have purchased. It pays for what the uninsured motorist's liability insurance would have paid if they had insurance.

Underinsured Motorist Coverage (UIM) applies if you are injured by someone else in an accident and their insurance is not enough to cover the value of your claim. An example will illustrate: some other driver causes an auto accident and you lose an arm. The person who caused the accident only has $15,000.00 in liabillity coverage, so you are only able to recover $15,000.00 from their insurance company even though you lost an arm. The person who hit you does not have enough insurance to pay the full value of your claim for your lost arm (they are underinsured). If you have UIM coverage then your insurance will pay you additional money for your losses up to the full value of your claim, or up to the amount of UIM coverage you purchased. So in the prior example if you have $100,000.00 in UIM coverage you can collect $15,000.00 from the insurace company of the person who caused the accident, and you can collect $100,000.00 from your insurance company under your UIM coverage.

UM/UIM coverage is much cheaper than liability coverage. It generally costs less than $50.00 (and often less then $20.00) per quarter.

Now answer this question: what do you think is more likely to happen - you make a mistake while driving and hurt someone else, or someone else out there makes a mistake and hurts you? Most people I talk to believe that some other nut on the road is more likely to cause an accident and hurt them, and that it is much less likely that they will make a mistake on the road and hurt somone else out there. This is why you must have UM/UIM coverage. You are required by law to pay several hundred dollars to make sure the rest of the world is protected against a mistake you may make. It only makes sense to pay an additional $20.00 - $50.00 for the same time period to make sure you and your loved ones are protected from a mistake that someone out there in the world may make (which is much more likely going to be the case).

UM/UIM is an absolute necessity and is a great deal. In fact it is such a great deal that for a while insurance companies were not telling their customers about it. It got so bad that states like Nevada have passed laws that require an insurance company to offer UM/UIM insurance to their customers whenever they sell an auto insurance policy.

A few examples will demonstrate what all this means in the real world.

The scenario is: An auto accident occurs that is not your fault. The person who hits you has $15,000.00 in liabillity coverage, and your injuries are such that your claim is worth $50,000.00.

If you have $5,000.00 in med pay and $30,000.00 in UM/UIM coverage you can collect $15,000.00 from the at fault driver, have your $5,000.00 in med pay coverage pay $5,000.00 of your medical bills, and collect your $30,000.00 in UM/UIM coverage because you were hit by an underinsured driver. In total you collect the full $50,000.00.

If you have $30,000.00 in UM/UIM you can collect the $15,000.00 from the at fault party, and collect your $30,000.00 in UM/UIM coverage because you were hit by an underinsured driver. In total you collect $45,000.00 on your $50,000.00 claim.

If you do not have any UM/UIM you can only collect $15,000.00 from the at fault driver. In total you collect $15,000.00 on your $50,000.00 claim.

One of the worst parts of my job is when someone comes into my office and tells me they have been injured in an accident (or one of their children have been injured), that the person who hit them did not have insurance, and they do not have UM/UIM. There is very little, if anything, that can be done for someone in that situation. Do not let that happen to you. Please talk to your insurance agent today about UM/UIM coverage and purchase it if you do not already have it.

"I don't want my insurance to pay for my injuries!"

“I don’t want my insurance to pay for my injuries!”

Posted by: Colt Dodrill
November 13, 2008
Topic: Insurance

I hear this all the time from my personal injury clients. I usually respond with, “you have been paying a lot of money for that insurance, you might was well use it.” Indeed, Nevada has some of the highest automobile insurance premiums in the country and health insurance premiums have been drastically increasing over years. Moreover, health care and insurance were a major issue in this past presidential election. So, I am surprised when, after sending a substantial portion of their income to insurance companies for coverage, my clients still want to prevent those same insurance companies from mailing them a check in return. A portion of those feelings are derived from a natural sense of justice. However, most of the confusion stems from a misunderstanding on how insurance works. I never disagree when someone states how murky the waters of insurance are.

As for justice, there often isn’t any as far as the injured party is concerned. Tort law provides monetary recovery, not for revenge. Except for rare exceptions, the civil laws of this country only govern the transfer of money from one person (perhaps the defendant) to another (perhaps the plaintiff). In other words, an injured plaintiff may receive, if anything, only a judgment for a specific sum of money. A personal injury lawyer cannot get the defendant fired, force him to move out of state, force him to buy a slower or safer vehicle, or install better lighting in his parking lot. That is the realm of the criminal justice system and the executive branch of government. So, if all you can receive is money for your injuries, why be concerned about which insurance (or whose) that money comes from?

First, N.R.S. 687B.385 prohibits an insurance company from raising the premiums of an insurer for making a claim when the accident, was not his fault. Nevertheless, many people remain concerned that their automobile insurance premiums will increase if they make a claim, because insurance companies do not generally make that known to their insurance companies. Carriers benefit from this myth in that many people fail to make legitimate claims as a result.

Second, clients are often confused as to what types of insurance may be available to them. Insurance comes in two major flavors: first-party and third-party. First-party is the client’s own insurance. It mainly consists of his automobile insurance and his health insurance, although depending on whether he was working at the time, may consist of his employer’s automobile insurance, and in some cases, worker’s compensation coverage. Going deeper, the client’s first-party automobile insurance may consist of medical payments coverage and underinsured/uninsured motorists coverage (“UIM”). Those coverages may make monetary payments to the client’s medical provider, or in some cases, directly to the client. Further, medical payments coverage in Nevada typically cannot subrogate. In other words, unlike health insurance, the client generally does not have to repay them from a settlement. So, as expensive as automobile insurance is in Nevada, not using medical payments coverage when available is like paying for gourmet food and going hungry while you let it spoil. Any client unaware of his coverage should review the declarations page or consult with his insurance agent.

UIM coverage makes payments directly to the client when the at fault party does not have enough third-party coverage to fully compensate the plaintiff. Like most insurance, UIM coverage is expensive. However, with so many people driving in Nevada with either no insurance or the minimum ($15,000) per person liability limits, driving without UIM is a risky proposition.

Health insurance includes, not only private health insurance like one may receive as a benefit from his employer, but also, public health insurance like Medicaid and Medicare. Typically, health insurance has a subrogation clause that allows them to seek reimbursement from any recovery you receive. However, in using health insurance, the plaintiff is able to take advantage of negotiated rates for health care. For example, a Dr. that may otherwise charge $80,000 for a particular procedure, may only be able to charge $3,500 for the same procedure if billed through health insurance. That allows the plaintiff to take home, in that case, $76,500 more than if he treated on a lien. I usually recommend my clients call their insurance to make sure they use a preferred provider in order to obtain those savings. After all, larger medical bills does not always mean a larger verdict or settlement. I strive for my clients to keep as much of their settlements as they can. Overpaying for anything never makes sense. Medical care should be treated the same way.

Unlike first-party coverage, third-party insurance is the liability insurance of the at-fault party. This may be automobile insurance, commercial general liability insurance, homeowner’s insurance, or renter’s insurance depending on the facts of the case. There may also be an umbrella policy. A good lawyer knows where to go for coverage. Indeed, depending on the circumstances, there may be more than one available. However, limiting one’s recovery to third-party coverage is not wise.

The truth is insurance is its own world with its own language and laws. Because of these complexities, among other things, many people hire attorneys to make their personal injury claims. But as complex as insurance is, one thing is clear: If you are concerned about how much you pay for insurance, you should not balk if your insurance actually wants to pay you. Otherwise, why are you paying for insurance you do not want to use? Of course, that is just my opinion, you should consult your attorney with any questions.