| I know what you're saying: "But Rodge, there must be some good news out there ...?" And you'd be right |
|
Friday, August 19, 2011
Setback For Ambulance Chasers!
6 comments:
-
Chuck Martel said...
-
I've never seen a reporter get a legal issue right -- ever. Whether it's a murder trial, a car wreck, or an appellate decision, they always screw it up.
That's what happened in this article.
It wasn't that the medical insurers (e.g. Blue Cross/Blue Shield and PacifiCare) "won big". It's that the insurers (e.g. State Farm and Nationwide) of those who injure innocent people may have "won big".
Ms. Howell was injured when the driver of a Hamilton Meats truck made an illegal U-turn and crashed into her. He caused her to rack up almost $200K in medical bills.
Her doctors and hospitals settled with her medical insurance company (PacifiCare) by reducing their $200K bills to about $60K. However, the agreement Ms. Howell had with her medical care providers was that she would be responsible for paying all bills incurred.
The entire decision is here . . .
http://tinyurl.com/3nrw3s9
But Ms. Howell and her family haven't been totally shafted by the California legal system. The ruling says that not all of her issues as to procedural and evidentiary errors were addressed e.g. if she still owes the remaining $140K to her doctors.
The bad-driver and his ins. co. haven't yet been able to skip out on their responsibility and aren't yet off scot-free on a technicality. -
8/19/11, 2:16 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Chuck,
I am glad you play devils advocate form time to time, especially with the legal stuff. Let us not become the liberals whos world view consists of themselves and their 3 best art school pals.
-bfhogues -
8/19/11, 3:14 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I do not understand your point Chuck. Presumably any payment agreement with the doctors and hospital should prevent collection of the remaining $140K by the service providers against the insurance company and the injured party, otherwise why would she agree to it? Thus limiting damages to the amount actually paid makes sense. I believe pain and suffering is a separate issue.
Luigi Palmieri -
8/19/11, 3:29 PM
-
Chuck Martel said...
-
I don't advocate for the Devil. I advocate for innocent people who have been hurt by people who break the rules.
We learn rules as small children. Look before crossing the street. Don't take something that isn't yours. Don't bully others.
We learn other rules as adults. Don't drink and drive. Watch where you're going. Don't make illegal U-turns.
I work for people who bleed, have broken bones, and can't work because other people broke the rules.
Luigi, the California Supreme Court's ruling sends the case back to the trial court, in part, to see if she and her family do owe the extra $140K. Ms. Howell wasn't part of the agreement to reduce payment from $200K to $60K. That was a deal cut between the medical care providers and her medical insurance company. She may still be on the hook for the remaining $140K and that is to be determined by the trial court.
("[Howell] supported her [position] with copies of the patient agreements she had signed with Scripps, in which she agreed to pay Scripps's "usual and customary charges" for the medical care she was to receive, and with CORE, in which she agreed to pay any part of the physician's fee her insurance did not pay.")
It ain't over yet. -
8/19/11, 3:50 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
If Chuck, Barn Army Jag officer in chief says it, it probably is true, I haven't found him to be wrong yet.
thoR~ -
8/20/11, 12:48 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Lawyers: The meaning of "is is".
Reporters: "Dewey Wins"
Her medical insurance company should not be on the hook for one red cent, nor should they have paid for her injuries. The person who caused the injuries, assuming{right...} he was insured, would be liable, and his liability insurance on his vehicle would be responsible for the medical bill.
Any well run medical insurance provider has a group that searches for payments made for accident victims, and they pursue reimbursement for such payments from the policyholders insurance company.
This case, from a minimal inspection, and Sir Chas' explanation, should never have come to court.
Unless I missed something in translation...
tomw -
8/21/11, 9:14 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)