Personal Injury - Documenting the Scene

    We have talked about the general overview of personal injury cases and some important things to remember when you are involved in a personal injury case. Another question we get a lot when we meet initially with clients is whether the client should have taken pictures or tried to do more to document the scene of the accident. In auto accident cases, most police departments will take pictures of the scene of the accident and the damage to any vehicles in the accident. So, for the most part, some evidence will be saved by the investigating officers. However, there are many ways with which our clients run into unfortunate accidents leading the injury. These range from slip and falls, dog bites, trip and falls, and many other accidents. There are not always police to help document the scene, and a few pictures can go a long way towards getting a more efficient and prompt settlement.

     If you are involved in one of these unfortunate injuries, the first thing to address is medical treatment. This cannot be stressed enough. The most important thing is always to get help and get the medical treatment you need as soon as you can get it. However, in today's era everyone seems to have a cell phone or a small camera with them at just about all times. One of the most helpful things to do if it is possible is to take out the camera and document the scene. We have had many cases where a client's simple idea of taking a couple of pictures with their cell phone has made a significant difference in the outcome of their case. These range from taking pictures of black ice formed in the parking lot, to pictures of a set of stairs that was in violation of state building codes, and even to an auto accident where the investigating officer did not have a camera due to their town's cost constraints.

     Regardless of whether a client has the wherewithal to document the scene where they were injured, it is always a priority for our office. We take great efforts to learn the facts of the accident and how to diagram what happened for a potential jury. This ability to show the individuals involved with deciding your case exactly what happened helps remove doubt from the insurance company and/or opposing counsel, and leads to more prompt and efficient resolutions. This is just one of the many ways our office has honed and refined our injury practice over the many years we have been handling injury cases. This allows for easier resolutions and less stress for our clients.

     If you were injured, please contact our office today so we can help you get the solution you need to more forward.

Injury Claims – The Road Map to Getting Back to Normal

The key to understanding injury claims is that claims handling is driven by insurance requirements. The vast majority of injury claims are resolved by settlement.  The parties to the settlement discussions are most commonly the injured party, his/her attorney and an insurance company. It is necessary to know how insurance companies process claims in order to achieve the best possible result. The most important thing to remember is that insurance companies rely heavily on objective information to form a valuation of each claim. This comes in the form of medical and billing records, accident reports, pictures, lost wages documentation, and other related records. The more complete your documentation the better your chance of a satisfactory result. Gathering documentation should be your first priority when you suffer from an unfortunate injury.

Here at Parnell & McKay, we make information gathering a top priority in each injury claim we handle. Our attorneys have the knowledge and know how to be able to track down every piece of important documentation on your claim. We understand what insurance companies are looking for, and we exert pressure on insurance companies based on that knowledge in order to obtain the highest settlement for our clients. We have secured millions of dollars in compensation for our clients using this time tested practice, and look forward to helping future injured parties get back on their feet.

If you were injured, read more about our personal injury practice here. As always in injury cases, consultations are free. Contact us today.

Difficulties with Personal Injury Cases: How the Insurance Defense Industry is Making Recovery Harder for Injured Victims

            A large part of our personal injury practice at Parnell & McKay deals with injuries people sustain in motor vehicle accidents. Bringing those claims to resolution now, more than ever, is a complicated and difficult task. Dr. Arthur Croft of the Spine Research Institute of San Diego (SRISD) is familiar with this difficulty, as he has had many patients of his become overwhelmed by the personal injury claims and litigation process.

            In his article, titled “Study Confirms Flaws in Standard Defense Strategy for MVC Injury”, he touches on how automobile insurers are doing everything they can to avoid paying personal injury claims. You can read Dr. Croft’s article here. Dr. Croft calls the position All-State Insurance, and others, take as the “three D’s – delay, deny and defend”. As a result, bringing claims has become more difficult because, as he says, “they traded good hands for boxing gloves” in their claims handling. Unfortunately, this strategy has become a successful financial choice for auto insurers because a lot of Plaintiffs have given up on their claims due to that difficulty.

            Dr. Croft also addresses how jurors are being misled by the auto insurance industry’s practice, relying on their biases and naiveté to achieve results. The first defense he addresses is when they argue that low velocity accidents (under 25mph) should not cause injury. However, Dr. Croft relies on a few studies that demonstrate objectively that this argument has no basis in science or fact. Research concluded that the velocity of the accident does not control the injuries suffered. While this seems like common sense to you and me, it is easy for a jury of our peers to get bogged down in the ‘pseudo-science’ of the auto insurer’s argument. Other factors like position of the head, the angle of the accident, the type of car involved, the greater susceptibility to injury of an older person, etc., all have major influences on the nature of the injury each person suffers. Dr. Croft’s article provides a great summary of how the nature of insurance defense has changed over the years, and how best to combat such aggressive tactics.

            At Parnell & McKay we have over 30 years of combined experience handling personal injury cases of all kinds. Dr. Croft’s article underlines why personal injury lawyers have become so integral to reaching a fair result for injured persons. In fact, he talks about how the difficult nature of injury cases has resulted in fewer lawyers handling personal injury files. At Parnell & McKay we are undeterred by these difficulties, and have adapted our practice to address these tactics and discredit them as thoroughly as possible.

            If you are injured and need help, please call the Law Offices of Parnell & McKay today. You can contact us here. 

The Dangers of Allowing the Legislature to Run the NH Courts: Why You Need to Vote “NO” on Question 2

                On November 2^nd this year, New Hampshire voters will be asked to vote on whether to give the power of administration of the Courts to the legislature. Here is the language from the proposed statute: “The legislature shall have a concurrent power to regulate the same matters by statute. In the event of a conflict between a statute and a court rule, the statute, if not otherwise contrary to this constitution, shall prevail over the rule.”

            The New Hampshire Bar Association has come out in complete opposition to the rule, as noted on their website here. There is a significant danger of giving the power of administration over to the Courts to a legislature that does not have the wherewithal nor the knowledge to administer it. Stephen Merrill and Honorable Joseph P. Nadeau wrote an article that demonstrates the risks this rule poses to the New Hampshire Court system and the citizens that have to navigate that system every day. They write: “What makes this legislative proposal troublesome and extreme is it violates a fundamental principle of constitutional democracy; the three branches of government ought to be separate and independent. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor noted, "The framers of the Constitution were so clear in the federalist papers and elsewhere that they felt an independent judiciary was critical to the success of the nation." We agree.”

They go on to address what the legislature has said they truly want to do, which is to control the Courts. They write: “Some legislators supporting the amendment say openly that they want to "control" the courts. What does that mean? It means a legislative takeover of the judiciary. We are compelled to speak out and say, "No”.” Stephen Merrill was Governor of New Hampshire from 1993 to 1997, and is a former New Hampshire Attorney General. Honorable Joseph Nadeau is a retired justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. These are people that understand the issues facing our Court system in New Hampshire as they have spent their lives actively participating in it.

            Over the past few years, our clients here at Parnell & McKay continue to be frustrated by the time they have to wait to get their case heard, and the difficulty in getting an efficient resolution. Allowing the legislature to wrest control of the Court system in New Hampshire away from the courts themselves is an extremely risky proposition, as former Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and current Dean of the UNH Law School, states in this article opposing the statute. In fact, former Chief Justice Broderick calls it a “very dangerous thing”.

            After navigating the Court systems of New Hampshire for over thirty years, we at Parnell & McKay understand the significant danger to the citizens of New Hampshire in allowing the legislature to control our Courts. We come out in opposition of Question 2, and hope the other voters of New Hampshire vote “No” on Question 2 as well. 

What is Income for Child Support? Recent N.H. decision uses broad definition

                We are often asked as attorneys what figure the Court uses as income for the purposes of calculating child support. RSA 458-C:3 defines “Gross Income” as “All income, from any source, whether earned or unearned…” and then goes on to include specific sources of income like wages, salary lottery or gambling winnings, etc. This is an easy concept for most people to understand. You work, you receive salary or wages, and those are calculated for child support purposes. However, what if you received hundreds of thousands of dollars from a life insurance policy? Well, the New Hampshire Supreme Court recently answered that question with a “yes”.

                The case, In the Matter of Larocque and Larocque, looked at whether life insurance proceeds the father received from the death of his second wife should be calculated as income for child support purposes. The father argued as a matter of law life insurance proceeds are not included as income, as there is no specific reference including those proceeds in the statute referenced above. The Supreme Court disagreed.

                First, the Court stated that while no specific reference including life insurance proceeds is in the statute, it is also worthy to note that there is no specific exclusion of life insurance proceeds. Second, the Court focused on how income for child support purposes can be “earned” or “unearned”. Third, they focused on how the life insurance payout was solely in the form of money, and how it was similar to the receipt of trust or annuity income which was specifically included in the child support statute. The Court reasoned that the definition of income for child support is broad, and found that the life insurance proceeds by law are to be included in child support calculations. In this case, the life insurance proceeds totaled $500,000.00 and were paid directly to the father. A child support award of around $100,000.00 was ordered to be paid to the mother.

                How can potential litigants avoid having this issue arrive in the common case of second marriages? Well, in the first instance, the title of the beneficiary of the life insurance is very important. It is common for parties to have life insurance policies that name the mother or father of the child as a “beneficiary in trust for the minor child or children”, which means the parents will receive the money on behalf of their children and that the funds can be used for that purpose. That option may not be palatable to some, and there are other options in order to properly title the potential insurance proceeds so the other party does not receive a windfall in child support.

                Here at Parnell & McKay, we have experience both in planning for the future and in family law. If you find yourself with concerns about how to handle your family case or potential estate, contact us today. 

Massachusetts vs. New Hampshire: Differences in Personal Injury Claims

                Massachusetts is a mandatory insurance state, and as a result, all residents of Massachusetts are required by law to carry automobile insurance. New Hampshire, on the other hand, does not require everyone to carry automobile insurance. Many people ask us what this means for them, and their potential injury claim.

                First, Massachusetts policies have what is called “personal injury protection” (a/k/a “PIP”) coverage. This is a type of insurance that pays for medical bills incurred as a result of an auto accident. So, if you are injured and have a Massachusetts policy, then the personal injury protection will be the first to pay out for medical bills. Under Massachusetts rules, the first $2,000.00 of all related medical bills to the accident are paid by the auto insurance coverage through PIP. Once the $2,000.00 is reached, there is an important event that happens, and that is the case reaches the “tort threshold”. Essentially, if you have incurred over $2,000 in medical bills, or have suffered scarring or permanent disability, then you are then allowed to proceed with a personal injury action. If you do not meet this tort threshold, you are not allowed to proceed under Massachusetts law, and are confined to be reimbursed by the PIP coverage. Once the $2,000 in PIP coverage is reached, then it gets really confusing. At that time, the primary payer on related medical bills to the accident switches to the health insurance company. They will pay the first payment, and then PIP coverage will pay for any co-pays or uncovered expenses that health insurance does not pay for. This will cover the next $6,000 of the total of $8,000 covered by PIP. However, PIP does not just cover medical bills, it also covers lost wages. So, it is very common for PIP to pay wages the injured person missed as a result of their inability to physically work. Thus, PIP coverage provides almost immediate remuneration to injured persons without having to reach a global settlement on your case.

                In New Hampshire, the insurance policies are markedly different. First, you will not typically find any PIP coverage that you would in Massachusetts. Instead, most New Hampshire policies have medical payment coverage that can be as little as $1,000, and as much as $10,000. This is commonly referred to as “med-pay”. It is very important that your attorney of choice understands med-pay coverage and how that affects your claim. Medical payment coverage is non-subrogable, which is a complex way of saying that any bill paid by the med-pay policy will not be required to be reimbursed through any settlement. This is different from your health insurance. If your health insurance carrier pays for medical bills from an accident, and then you settle your claim from the accident, then the health insurance carrier has a right to subrogate (i.e. be reimbursed in part) a portion of the payments they have made to those medical bills. Thus, it is very important that any attorney understands that med-pay coverage must be exhausted first in order to save clients a potentially substantial sum of money. Unfortunately, in New Hampshire, this is all the payments you will receive other than reimbursement for property damage. Insurance companies will generally not pay lost wages or non-med-pay covered medical bills without reaching a global settlement on the file. Thus, as you can see, there are pros and cons to both systems. The Massachusetts system is complex and involves multiple insurance companies and departments, while the New Hampshire system is broader and involves fewer insurance issues. Both have their benefits, and both have their drawbacks.

                Here at Parnell & McKay, we pride ourselves on our knowledge of insurance law, and how to utilize that knowledge to maximize the benefits to our clients in any injury case. If you are injured, please contact us today to schedule an appointment. Consultations are free.

                        This blog is not legal advice, and is just a general summary of law. You are not to rely on any statements in this blog in relation to your pending case or cases. This blog does not establish an attorney-client relationship, and shall not be construed to do so. If you have specific legal questions, please contact us as your individual case requires individual analysis and review. 

The Importance of Language in the Law: Paying College Expenses

In a recent decision by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, two ex-spouses argued about whether they had to pay for college expenses. The case, titled In the Matter of Christian Poulin and Rose Marie Poulin Wall, took a hard look at the specific language used in the parties’ Divorce Decree. The language stated, in pertinent part, “The parties agree to contribute to their children’s college education to the extent each party is financially able.  The actual contributions shall be determined when each child is near college age.” The mother asked the father to pay 75%, the father refused and attempted to pay a lower number, and this case ensued.

                The father argued that the agreement lacked specificity, and cited another New Hampshire Supreme Court case, In the Matter of Scott & Pierce. The father argued that the language of the Decree only required them to meet and discuss the case, and consistent with Scott, the case should be dismissed.

                The Supreme Court disagreed. The language in the Scott decree only stated the parties would sit down at a future date to discuss paying for college. This was different from the language in this case, which stated that the parties both “agreed to contribute to their children’s college education”. This was a specific order to contribute, and that any order dictating what amount that contribution to college would be if the parties could not agree was merely to modify that initial order. The Court sent the case back down to the Family Court to determine what amount each party was financially able to contribute to their daughter’s college expenses.

                This is an important example of the importance of specific language in any request for a court order or stipulation. Language is integral to law, as it should provide parties with a clear indication of their rights and obligations moving forward.

                If you need assistance understanding the “language of law’, please contact us today.