At the time of an auto accident, you are confused, disoriented and making good decisions may not come to you as quickly as during normal times. But, after an auto accident, in the minutes after an accident, a day or two after, there are steps you must take to ensure your safety, the safety of others, and your financial safety.

Nearly any accident is preventable by someone; but maybe not by you. Certainly, defensive driving; anticipating what other drivers may do at any given time and what your corresponding reaction would be, is important. Defensive driving, by itself, may not be enough to avoid the driver who runs into the back of you or the driver who runs the red light and T-bones you. So, wear your seat belt, and maintain good, comprehensive insurance coverage in order to guard against those times when defensive driving is not enough.

The first step to take after you are involved in an auto accident is to stop. Leaving the scene of an accident is not only illegal, but could also be dangerous. You, your passengers, your car, or others at the scene could be injured or damaged, and leaving could increase these damages; but, more importantly, leaving may place someone’s life in danger. Tell your passengers to stay in the car; check for oncoming traffic to your rear, sides and front; make sure that you, your passengers, and the other party involved in the accident are safe.

If allowing your vehicle to remain where it came to rest is dangerous to other motorists and your vehicle can be safely moved off the roadway, do so in the safest possible way. If your vehicle can not be moved or if moving your vehicle may cause more dangerous problems, leave your vehicle where it is and call the appropriate law enforcement or 911. Without endangering yourself, try to verify the condition of other drivers and their passengers so you can fully inform the law enforcement agency. Never agree to leave the scene of an accident without contacting law enforcement; even if you think the accident was your fault. The problems involved with not having law enforcement evaluation of an accident can be significant.

Exchange information with the other party. The necessary information includes:

• the name of the other driver;
• the address and telephone numbers (including business numbers) of the other driver;
• the name(s), and if possible addresses, of passengers in the other drivers’ cars;
• the name, address, telephone number, and policy number for the insurance company providing coverage to the the other party;
• the date and time of the accident;

Take pictures of your car, the other cars, and the overall roadway. Most cell phones have cameras that will be sufficient for this task. Do not go into the roadway or endanger yourself to obtain pictures.

Do not volunteer any information  or opinions concerning fault in the accident. The police will write a full report based on their own visual inspection. Answer the questions of the police officer fully. Ask the police officer for an incident or report number. As soon as possible, call your insurance company and provide them with a complete accounting of the accident. Once you arrive at your ultimate destination or as soon as your injuries permit, call your insurance company in order to open a claim in connection with the accident.

Do not provide statements to insurance companies representing anyone else. If you are contacted by someone claiming to be from your insurance company, obtain their name and telephone number; call them back to verify they are actually from your insurance company. Ask your insurance company for a written copy of any statement you may give to them.

If you are injured in the accident or if you have any questions concerning your rights, contact an attorney skilled in personal injury law to determine your rights and what action, if any, you should take. Under no circumstances can it be recommended you sign any releases or provide recorded statements to the opposing insurance company adjusters without contacting an attorney to learn about your rights.

Remember that limitation periods apply to causes of action arising from auto negligence and failure to make a claim or file a lawsuit within the prescribed time may cause you to lose important legal rights. Contact an attorney you trust to determine what the limitation period may be in your case.

Editor’s Note: The majority of this article contains copyrighted information, which has been reprinted through the kind permission of the Florida Association of Insurance Agents. Only the first two paragraphs of introduction are of original content. You can visit the Florida Association of Insurance Agents’ website at: www.faia.com

Who has never asked, “Why should I carry stacked uninsured motorist (UM) coverage on a single car on my policy?  What is there to stack upon?”   OK, even if you haven’t asked the question, you should consider asking it now.  Ask the question before your policy comes up for renewal.  Even with a singlecar insured on your policy, there is a coverage difference between the stacked and non-stacked UM forms which can affect whether you or your family members will be able to collect UM at all.  Florida statute 627.727(9) addresses UM coverage and the stacking/non-stacking issue. The statute is et forth at section 627.727 of Florida Statutes.

Most insurance companies do offer the non-stacked coverage, and far too often, the policy holder does not get a full understanding of the differences between the two forms, other than the cost increase for the stacking version of UM coverage.  Remember too, the statute is clear that if the policy holder does not sign an election/rejection form at the inception of the policy, the UM coverage is issued at a limit equal to the bodily injury limits on a stacked basis.

Coverage Similarities
Before looking at the differences in stacked and non-stacked UM, let’s look at the similarities.

• “An insured” for UM includes the person named, the resident spouse, and related persons who are reside in the household, such as children.  (Persons occupying “your covered auto” are also “an insured” for UM coverage.)
• Both forms allow an insured to collect UM coverage while occupying an auto that they own and insure.
• Both forms allow an insured to collect while they are occupying an auto not  owned by them. For example, a resident spouse rents a Hertz car or borrows a friend’s car and is injured by an uninsured motorist.
• Both forms respond out of state.
• Both forms respond if an insured is on a business errand or in a vehicle owned by their employer.
• Both forms respond for an insured who is occupying a non-owned motorcycle
• Both forms allow an insured to collect UM benefits if they are struck as a pedestrian by an uninsured motorist.

Thus, both the stacked and the non-stacked UM forms provide coverage which is “portable” meaning it follows a policy holder into non-owned vehicles and as a pedestrian.

The stacking provision, in its simplest and most basic form, states that a policy holder can take the UM available on each car which is owned and insured and “stack” it together to be used anywhere.  On the other hand, non-stacking is much like “what you see is what you get,” meaning the UM limit you see on the declarations page is what you get, no matter how many cars you own and insure.

Coverage Differences
Besides a pure dollar difference, there is a significant coverage difference between the two forms which could affect whether you or your family members can collect under the UM provision of the policy.  At times the stacked form will respond for a claim whereas, the non-stacked form will not.  The non-stacked form has an exclusion stating that the insured can’t collect UM while occupying a vehicle owned by the insured, but not covered for UM under the policy.
A typical non-stacked UM form has an exclusion that reads something like this:
A. We do not provide Uninsured Motorists Coverage for “bodily injury” sustained:
1. By an “insured” while “occupying” any motor vehicle owned by that “insured” which is not insured for this coverage under this policy. This includes a trailer of any type used with that vehicle.

When Stacked UM Responds but Non-stacked Coverage Does Not

• The policy holder obtains a second vehicle and does not call to report the vehicle within the allowable reporting period of 14 to 30 days after purchase (depending on the particular form).  Two months later, he or she is hurt while occupying that new vehicle, injured by an uninsured motorist.  Stacked coverage responds while the non-stacked does not.
• The policy holder owns a clunker, a vehicle that is not licensed and is used a few times a year to haul material to the county dump a few blocks away.   The policy holder decides to take advantage of the Cash for Clunkers program, and on the way to the dealership, a collision occurs with an uninsured motorist, and the policy holder is injured. Stacked coverage responds while the non-stacked form does not.
• The policy holder is a “snowbird” who insures one vehicle in Florida under non-stacked UM and owns another vehicle up north.  He is in the northern vehicle and is injured by an uninsured motorist.  The Florida policy with stacked coverage responds while non-stacked does not.
• The policy holder owns a motorcycle, insures it separately under a motorcycle policy and has rejected UM under the motorcycle policy due to the high cost.  In addition, the policy holder owns a car insured on a personal auto policy.  While on the motorcycle he is injured by an uninsured motorist.  With stacked UM on the auto policy coverage responds for the injury sustained while occupying the motorcycle; non-stacked UM would not respond.

The original question was, “Why stack UM on a single car risk?”  Hopefully this article has shown how, even with one car on a policy, the stacked UM form provides broader coverage than the non-stacked form.  Each of the examples above shows how coverage is broader under the stacked form.  To say that stacked UM benefits only those with more than one car is not correct.

Back to the Future–Answering the Original Question

While it is true that many people may never face a situation in which stacked UM on a single car policy would respond and non-stacked would not.  However, it’s critical to understand the coverage differences in the two forms.   Stacked benefits always give the insured the benefit of the most, and broadest, uninsured motorist coverage.
ANSWER:  There are two major differences in the stacked and non-stacked UM forms.  One relates directly to how much money the client can collect.  The other difference is whether the form responds or not.  The stacked UM form will respond at times when the non-stacked UM form does not.  Even on a policy with a single vehicle being insured, there is a difference in UM coverage.

For more information on this topic and others, please visit the INSURANCE LIBRARY from the Florida Department of Financial Services: CLICK HERE and then click General Coverage Information, a drop down menu will appear for your selection.  Happy motoring!

The Lord’s Place began as a soup kitchen in 1979 and now gives homeless families hope for the future. The Lord’s Place provides homeless families with a haven in which to begin rebuilding their lives.

The Lord’s Place is holding its 2nd Annual Ending Homelessness Breakfast on November 6, 2009, from 8:00 to 9:30 AM:

In today’s economic climate the statistics available are staggering and are likely to get worse:

• 40% of homeless people went without anything to eat for at least one day in the last 30 days because they could not afford food.
• 64% of homeless people report they have a problem with alcohol or drug use. 39% report they have mental health problems.
• While homeless 79% have money or possessions stolen from them.
• 44% have jobs that do not pay enough to keep a roof over their heads.
• 60% of homeless women have children who live with them.
• In Palm Beach County, approximately 4,000 individuals are homeless on any given day. 35% of those are children.
• 83% of the homeless in Palm Beach County report they need multiple services to escape homelessness.
• 89% of respondents are homeless for one year or less.

(Statistic Source: National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers & Clients; Published in December 1999)

So, call Mark Pafford at 561.494.0125 to obtain tickets to this event and help ease a family’s suffering.

St. Mary’s Hospital in West Palm Beach issued a statement relating to the wrong medication errors during the treatment of Tesome Sampson and her unborn child:

“On Sept. 4, 2008, a patient came to St. Mary’s in extremely premature labor. Due to a medication error, the patient was given medication to speed up her labor instead of medication that attempts to stop premature labor. Ultimately, the baby was born and suffered brain damage,” the statement said. “This was an unfortunate error that occurred despite the safeguards we have in place. . . . We apologized to the family for this deeply regrettable error.”

From all indications, this is the first time that St. Mary’s and its parent, Tenet Corporation, has acknowledges this error. Still, they characterize the error as almost normal negligence. They claim that their safeguards were in place and, presumably, they were appropriate. If that is the case, then they have a system in place, which permits colossal errors to occur without a system “catch” to cause someone to question, to investigate, and to stop a very serious error like this. In this case, a drug (Prostin) was administered to a pregnant woman. This is a drug that would never, never be given to a pregnant woman unless you wanted to force an abortion. This is not an oops sort of mistake, this is providing care you would almost never provide to this particular patient.

Hopefully, St. Mary’s risk management is approaching their system check with a more serious tone than their public explanation.

Phillip Morris was found to be 38% at fault in the death of a smoker. This is the verdict delivered by a jury of good citizens on August 14, 2009, in Broward County, Florida.

Philip Morris and their lawyers, presumably, blame the judge and bad rulings made by him. Altria’s (Philip Morris’ owner) senior vice-president, Murray Garrick said that “Today’s verdict is the result of a severely prejudicial trial plan. From beginning to end, this case was marked by legal rulings that should be reversed on appeal”
Imagine a cigarette company denying their product had anything at all to do with the death of a smoker. Apparently, Philip Morris and Altria do not believe they shared even 38% of the blame. It seems that Big Tobacco is not going to ever accept responsibility for producing a product, which they have manipulated and adulterated to an extent that it really has little connection with original tobacco.

But why change your conduct if you are a multi-billion dollar empire that has produced a drug for 75 years that the FDA would never allow to be marketed today? Why change your concern for billions in profits over dead victims of your product?
In 1958, The Tobacco Institute (a propaganda organization created by Big Tobacco) spewed a press release that, in part, said the following:

“It is the position of the Tobacco Institute (and so Big Tobacco) that the health of the American people is more important than dividends for the tobacco or any other industry.”

Apparently, that was as false as their claims for the last 70 years that cigarettes are not addictive and cigarettes do not cause lung cancer, COPD or any of the other dozens of diseases we know they cause.

To be fair, this statement was made by Big Tobacco before they knew, that we knew, that they knew for a long time that cigarettes would make people sick and kill them. So, sure they were not really on a search for the truth; in fact, they were lying, but hey, the health of the American people was what was important to them. Billions of dollars in profit was not what was driving this industry. Greed was in the back seat to charity and compassion for Big Tobacco.

When the CEO’s of all Big Tobacco stood before congress and stated the following where was the charity?:

(more…)

I am busy–really busy. Everyone in our firm is busy–real busy.

No matter how busy, though, I am glad that occasionally, I take the time to be thankful for what I have–including being busy. When I see people less fortunate than me or my family, I am thankful for the gifts bestowed on me.

So, it is always great to be a part of a law firm that believes giving back to the community is a responsibility for us.

One of the many really great groups who make it their business everyday to be a part of making the world that much better is Seagull Industries. You can read more about Seagull and the wonderful things they do at their website or at a recent blog published by one of our partners, Brenda Fulmer.

Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers sell their wares for a profit. Nothing wrong with that. If I sold widgets, I would certainly want to generate a profit. If my widgets carried with them the potential to cause severe injury and death though, I would have the absolute responsibility to not place my profits above safety. I would have the absolute duty to alert the public of any potential dangers from the use of my widgets. If I produced a bad widget or if I discovered that use of my widgets inherently caused injury, I would be absolutely duty-bound to alert the consumer. In other words, I am not permitted to generate profit on the backs of injured consumers.

In the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, manufacturers can profit and lose as a result of scientific studies reporting the efficacy and dangers of their products. This is a good thing, though, right? Well, you would think so. The scientists study medical products and are in a position to alert manufacturers to potential dangers—that is a good thing. Well, it’s a good thing if you are not a CEO, waist deep in substantial investments and needing to generate a profit for shareholders. It’s bad if you are a CEO who discovers (or the scientists illustrate what you already knew) that your profitable product is hurting or killing people.

We have suspected for some time that some scientists and medical experts might be “spinning” their conclusions in medical literature so as to down play the problems with various drugs and devices. We now discover what was published in the New York Times about Wyeth and their hormone replacement therapy products (written by Natasha Singer):

“Newly unveiled court documents show that ghostwriters paid by a pharmaceutical company played a major role in producing 26 scientific papers backing the use of hormone replacement therapy in women, suggesting that the level of hidden industry influence on medical literature is broader than previously known.”

“The court documents provide a detailed paper trail showing how Wyeth contracted with a medical communications company to outline articles, draft them and then solicit top physicians to sign their names, even though many of the doctors contributed little or no writing. The documents suggest the practice went well beyond the case of Wyeth and hormone therapy, involving numerous drugs from other pharmaceutical companies.”

What happens here is a ghostwriter authors a paper that is favorable to the particular drug or medical device and a “recognized expert” is paid to put his or her name on the article in order to lend real credence to it. Win – win, right? Not surprisingly, the articles are often written in a way to obscure or outright dispute problems that the manufacturer knows about or should know about before the product hits the market.

(more…)

There is an old saying that if you have your health you have everything.  Anyone who has ever suffered a debilitating injury or lost a loved one to injury or disease knows this reality all too well.  We are also told by medical experts that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  We are told to exercise, eat right, see a doctor for regular check-ups and indulge ourselves in life’s pleasures with moderation.

Regardless of our efforts to prevent injury and disease, inevitably we will require the services of a medical professional.  What is often overlooked is the important role of the patient in making sure the medical professional renders the very best of care.  This role is more important than we think.  For example, a 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine estimates that up to 98,000 people die in hospitals each year due to medical errors.  .  This exceeds the deaths from motor vehicle crashes, breast cancer and AIDS.

There was an excellent article on the CNN Health website advising patients to be proactive during a hospital stay to ensure that the very best care is received. The article suggests the following:

1.    Bring a list of the medications you are taking;
2.    Make sure the hospital gets your name right;
3.    Ask about every medication they give you;
4.    Make sure everyone washes their hands;
5.    If you think something’s wrong, don’t back down;

This is sage advice.  Many times, people admitted to a hospital feel helpless and confused and are hesitant to speak up when interacting with nurses and doctors.  We live in a culture that has for many years accepted the notion that what doctors say and do is not to be questioned.

(more…)

There are certain drug compounds that I, as a consumer, can not purchase without the permission (think prescription here) of a licensed physician. There is very good reason for this. There are drugs for which the use must be weighed and evaluated by trained medical people. In some cases the risk in taking a drug may very well be certain death or serious injury.

International drug sales represent a +$600 billion per year industry. It is not an insignificant pot of money and it involves a relatively small number of total competing companies; all of whom command the distribution of sales and profits. This is big business.

I am entirely in favor of corporate profit and I am a very big supporter of the free market and capitalism. Corporate America, however, can not have it both ways. They can not market products they know to be potentially dangerous; in a way that distorts the benefits of the dangerous product or in a way that obscures all of the potential risks of a dangerous product.

In the year 2000, the pharmaceutical industry spent $16 billion marketing drugs in the US and, of that, $2.5 billion was spent in direct to consumer marketing (in 2008, the industry spent over $5 billion). So, the drug industry believed it was a smart investment to spend 20% of their total advertising in trying to sell to a part of the population who can not directly purchase their product. They still concentrated their ad investment on physicians, but they can not appeal to the emotional aspects of physician’s decision making process.

Drug companies should be making the honest advantages of their drugs and all the potential side effects and complications of their drugs their featured message in direct to consumer advertising. These marketers of potentially dangerous products should not be more interested in Broadway productions than in conveying important information. This area of marketing has become a real science. It is readily accepted by psychologists and ad creators that people remember more things in the beginning and the end of a list than they do in the middle of the list. Ad makers know to “bury” the bad news (think potential side effects) in the middle of commercials.

What do some drug companies ACTUALLY do? They distract; they control tempo; they time their delivery of complications information at moments during their commercials when the consumer is LEAST likely to be listening carefully. Many of the drug companies seem much more interested in creating a feeling of euphoria than relaying information.

See Video Deceptive Drug Ads Video at Time.

Ruth Day is a researcher at Duke University who studies “medical cognition”. She cites a number of isolated examples of drug ad distraction:

·    An ad for Schering-Plough’s allergy drug Nasonex featured a bumble bee that flew around as side effects were listed, but simply hovered when benefits were discussed. “All of these wing flaps and wing flashes and sparkly things essentially divided the attention of the viewers … and thus led to decreased knowledge” of possible risks, Day said.
·    Merck/Schering-Plough’s one-minute ad for the cholesterol-lowering drug Vytorin is a standard example: it repeats the drug’s benefits over and over, but squeezes in risk information only once and just after the halfway mark. (Time, 2008)
·    The Lunesta commercial’s narrator spoke at the same syllable-per-second clip for the entire ad; the Ambien ad’s voiceover speed was about five syllables per second during the explanation of benefits, but accelerated to eight syllables per second when explaining the potential side effects.

And, then there is all that Yaz! This is a drug in which Bayer promises birth control, sure, but oh so-o-o-o much more! According to Bayer (depending on which ads you pay attention to), Yaz will: reduce menstrual bleeding; reduce irritability, moodiness, bloating, and feeling anxious; and emotional and physical premenstrual symptoms.  Amazingly, it also treats acne, so it is just perfect for the teens in the crowd.
What is wrong with this? The Broadway show of balloons, jumping women, colors, and other extravaganza distract from the important information: what complication do I potentially face in taking this drug?  The message is deceptive: if you take Yaz, you too will be a young, attractive, energetic, successful woman, who is admired by all who see you.

One can only hope that the pharmaceutical industry pays as much attention to their research as they do their Broadway style advertising budgets.

The harvesting of bodily tissues without consent is considered battery; however, using tissue previously removed during medical procedures to facilitate research experiments is not prohibited.  Without tissue donations, the production of certain biomedical products would be impossible to produce. Recent law, however, has sided with pharmaceutical companies by stating that tissues removed through a medical procedure can, in fact, be used for “medical research” or commercial purposes without the consent of their donor (Moore v. the Regents of the University of California). Is it immoral for biomedical corporations to profit from products derived from tissues of patients who are not compensated for their use?

There are very few regulations governing the distribution and development of products created using “donated” human tissue. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), tissue banks are largely unregulated. Although they are required to submit to regular inspections, most of these inspections do not take place due to budget constraints.

Even though tissue and organ banks are required to screen organs for diseases, “[i]n 2001, federal investigators reported some human tissue banks repeatedly retest tissue until it complies with safety regulations, a process that is scientifically unsound and unsafe.” This questionable practice may promote the transmission of harmful diseases. Federal Statutes impose penalties of up to $50,000 and up to five years in prison for anyone violating the standard of care by facilitating the implantation of contaminated body parts. Furthermore, due to donor confidentiality issues, there is no way of tracking where particular organs originated. It is therefore nearly impossible to trace that contaminated organs until after their transplantation .

The potential negative implications of the lack of regulation in an industry basing its livelihood on improving human life are frightening. We are faced with an interesting and novel dilemma. The existing situation creates a necessity for change, but the implementation of these improvements will undoubtedly prove difficult. Hopefully, this problem can be resolved through successful litigation and legislation designed to protect the public-both from the transmission of disease and the exploitation of their bodily tissues.