$65,000 Trial Award
Feller v. CStein, Inc.
Our client is a warehouse worker who suffered a back injury while lifting product in a warehouse. There were no witnesses to the accident. Although our client had worked for the company for 11 years, the employer claimed the injury did not occur at work and refused to pay for our client’s medical treatment and disability payments. In fact, our client was subsequently terminated [for cause due to a dirty drug test].
We fought the employer’s insurance company at trial and won our client’s retroactive disability payments and medical care, totaling $65,000 to date. Benefit payments are ongoing and a substantial indemnity settlement is anticipated. Future medical care remains open.
$80,000 Trial Award
Brown v. Laidlaw (First Student)
Our client was a school bus driver who slipped and fell on the stairs leading out of her bus. She suffered a serious back injury. The client was initially treated conservatively. When conservative treatment failed, the client was referred for a surgical consultation. However, the insurer and employer diverted the client from the recommended course of treatment in order to attempt to avoid paying for a back surgery. Medicaid paid for the surgery when the employer and surety denied payment.
The first surgery then resulted in the need for a second surgery. We took the case to trial and won our client’s right to employer-paid medical treatment. The employer and surety are paying for:
- The first surgery
- The second surgery
- Time-loss benefits
- Past prescription costs
- Physical therapy
- Attorney fees and costs
Benefit payments are ongoing and a substantial indemnity settlement is anticipated. Future medical care remains open.
$165,226.02 Cash Settlement
Sanchez v. Holiday Inn
Our client was a waitress earning minimum wage when she injured her shoulder and back at work. Because of the likely need for future medical care, Defendants wanted to buy out the disability and future medical treatment by depositing money into an annuity. Our client didn’t want to be beholden to the insurer for the rest of her life. Therefore, we “reverse-engineered” the annuity proposal and learned what the employer and insurer would have had to pay to fund the annuity.
We then made a demand for the funding amount. The insurer and employer initially refused but, ultimately, made the full payment as settlement. The lump sum settlement enabled our client to fund a new business and become self-sufficient. She no longer has to worry about the insurer and employer trying to alter the settlement agreement and does not have to wait on the insurer and/or annuity company to decide to send a check each month.
Let's Talk. We're Stading By to Help.
Call now for a free evaluation
Comparative Negligence Rule
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE RULE
Idaho follows the comparative negligence rule, which means that a court will look at both parties’ actions and level of fault in the case of a motorcycle accident.
Even if you were both driving irresponsibly, if the other driver was driving more carelessly, then you may still have a case. It’s important to recognize, however, that any fault on your part will limit the amount of damages which you can receive.