Oklahoma City Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Popular

Man in Coma for 23 Years Heard Everything

Jeremy Thurman — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:04:22 GMT

Imagine being trapped in your own body. When you think of being trapped the first thing that may come to mind is being confined, now think about the only thing confining you is your brain. Your loved ones are all around you trying to talk to you; meanwhile, you lay there and cannot speak. You scream, shout, cry, smile, and even laugh occasionally but no one knows but you. Now imagine this has been going on for 23 years. Recently in Brussels, Belgium this nightmare is one man’s reality. Recently made public in newspapers and internet sites throughout the world is the story of Rom Houben, a 46 year old man, who was involved in a car accident 26 years ago. Up until 3 years ago this man was thought to be in a vegetative state, but thanks to new brain scanning technology they discovered that not only was Mr. Houben’s brain functioning properly but it was almost operating normally. Dr. Steven Laureys, a neurologist at the University of Liège in Belgium, has published a new study that states Mr. Houben could be one of many misdiagnosed coma cases in the world. Dr. Laurey’s study states that up to 40% of cases labeled vegatative state, upon closer examination are found to have at least some brain activity. With this new finding they have found that some cases with consciousness can be treated and they are making considerable progress.

This grim reality could happen to any one of us. A simple trip to the grocery store could put you or a loved one in a hospital bed, one that they may never get out of again. In the United States in 2008 per every 100,000 population, 12.25 people were killed (FARS DOT). While every year less and less people are dying on the roadways, there are still severe injury accidents that occur. Every day I count my blessings when I make it home safely, and I was not responsible for somebody’s pain and suffering.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeremy Thurman

Oklahomans Need to Carry Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Insurance

Jeremy Thurman — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:48:18 GMT

One (1) in four (4) Oklahomans do not carry automobile liability insurance. According to the Muskogee Phoenix the latest national survey shows one in four Oklahomans drive without insurance. The publication states that

Oklahoma's rate in a survey released in January by the national Insurance Research Council is 24 percent -- the fourth-worst in the nation.

As an Oklahoma auto accident attorney, I have seen the devastating effects of negligent drivers who do not carry liability insurance as mandated by the state. There have been times when clients have had hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills with no health insurance or other avenue to pay those bills. Given my experience in dealing with uninsured drivers, I typically recommend that individuals carry at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) in uninsured motorist coverage. For some, they may need more. However, anything less subjects you and your family to the risks of being underinsured should you or a family member sustain serious injuries in a car accident.

If you or loved one has been injured or a loved one killed in an auto accident, McIntyre Law, P.C. has the experience and knowledge needed to successfully handle your auto accident case. Contact us immediately after an auto accident and we will discuss the situation with you and come up with a plan of action to help you get compensation for your injuries, property damage or a loved one’s wrongful death. Visit www.mcintyrelaw.com or call toll free 1-866-917-5200 to discuss your case and find out the best course of action to ensure that you get the compensation you deserve.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeremy Thurman

Wall Street Journal - Bush Rule Changes Could Block Product-Safety Suits

Jeremy Thurman — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:27:38 GMT

I don’t get it, why do so called conservatives dislike consumer protections so much? This isn’t conservatism, it’s a neocon movement of big business and big pharmaceuticals to rewrite consumers ability to hold them to account for lying, cheating and harming the public.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that “Bush administration officials, in their last weeks in office, are pushing to rewrite a wide array of federal rules with changes or additions that could block product-safety lawsuits by consumers and states.

The administration has written language aimed at pre-empting product-liability litigation into 50 rules governing everything from motorcycle brakes to pain medicine. The latest changes cap a multiyear effort that could be one of the administration's lasting legacies, depending in part on how the underlying principle of pre-emption fares in a case the Supreme Court will hear next month.”

Of particular interests is that just this year, the article reports that 10 new regulations, including one issued Oct. 8 at the Department of Transportation that limits the number of seatbelts car makers can be forced to install and prohibits suits by injured passengers who didn't get to wear one.

Now if your thinking a new President, from either party can undo this harm, the article reports that it can’t be done easily.

What is most funny is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform which spending on these issues drafts that of Trial Lawyers is supporting this as part of its campaign to "neutralize plaintiff trial lawyers' excessive influence over the legal and political systems," according to its Web site.

Talk about influence, check this: The chamber itself, which represents millions of businesses of all sizes, is the biggest spender on the lobbying. In 2006, it spent $72.7 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group that tracks money in politics. On the trial lawyers’ side, the American Association for Justice spent $8.3 million that year.

The article states that Bush wants this to be one of his lasting legacies. Now I’m not one who has ever piled on the President even when I should have. That said, with the war on terrorism, war in Iraq, economic troubles et al, this is what Bush wants to be one of his lasting legacies? That legacy would be denying injured people compensation by virtue of laws aimed at defending the uber-rich corporations.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeremy Thurman

Oklahoma Governor Vetoes Draconian Tort Reform Bill

Jeremy Thurman — Tue, 01 May 2007 10:27:14 GMT

Abraham Lincoln once wrote to a colleague that "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Thanks to Governor Henry's veto, Oklahoma citizens have avoided a draconian like bill that would have sold the collective rights of individuals to the highest bidder. Obviously, the governor was under immense pressure from the richest people of this state, Corporations and doctors. However, he stood tall and strong and did the right thing.

The right thing, what a novel concept, it seems to have been totally forgotten by the Oklahoma Republican Party and those pundits who so eloquently, but albeit falsely portray a crisis in this state involving the tort system. Shame on you Republicans, I as a conservative can no longer have any trust in any propaganda that is spewed from you mouth.

What is even more humorous is the gross misinformation coming from Republicans in a fashion that would make any good marketing or propaganda minister jealous. For instance, Senate Republican Leader Glen Coffee made this eloquent remark: "The governor missed a grand opportunity to send a message to the nation that Oklahoma is pro-jobs, pro-doctor, and pro-business," Coffee continued. "Instead, he sent a message that millionaire trial lawyers are still running the show." Senator I have just one question for you, is it better that the governor send a message to the nation that he is pro-citizens, pro-retired persons, pro-children, pro-stay at home mothers, pro-family, pro-fire fighters, pro-consumers than pro-profit making entities who seek these reforms to only further their profit margin while not passing any savings on to the consumer (look at other state's who have enacted reform and you'll see that these things do not happen.) Further, I'm tired of the same old rhetoric about the million dollar trial lawyers. Frankly, I must be missing something as I do not have my millions. What Propaganda minister Coffee is failing to tell you is that Oklahoma trial lawyers have much lower median income than Oklahoma Doctors, CEOs, and certainly lower than the Republican politicians.

Onto more misinformation, this time from Republican Leader (I'm not sure following is being a leader but I digress) Lance Cargill who stated: "It is ridiculous for the governor to claim he is trying to protect businesses. Business owners know the truth, and they wanted this reform." No Lance, its truly ridiculous that you would imply that this bill was trying to protect business. It was designed not to protect, but to immunize. He sought not to limit frivolous suits but to limit all suits. As governor Henry correctly opined, the bill was about limiting damages rather than eliminating frivolous suits. If frivolous suits are to be eliminated, they should be eliminated on the front end before businesses spend money defending them. Further, the propaganda from Lance continued: "though it's difficult to assign a specific dollar number, economic experts say the veto is likely to have far-reaching harmful implications for Oklahoma, a statement from Speaker Lance Cargill's House claims." Well Lance, the reason its difficult to assign a specific dollar amount about harmful implications for Oklahoma is because there are no harmful implications. This is just rhetoric designed to scare, we all know that you can't find an expert that isn't paid in full by the corporations and insurance industry.

Next I'll give a few quotes from our business community. Oklahoma's State Chamber reacted to the governor's veto with dismay: "Even though small business owners and large Oklahoma corporate citizens came together in their effort to communicate the importance of his signing of the lawsuit reform elements he himself called for, the plain fact is that he chose to listen to his trial lawyer friends," said Mike Seney, senior vice president of operations for The State Chamber. Well Mike, he didn't listen to trial lawyers, he listened to his heart and chose normal everyday Oklahoman's over a conglomerate of businesses that have funded this propaganda and lie in hope of padding their bottom line at the expense of Oklahomans rights to civil justice.

I could go on about the businesses and their statements, but I'll leave it at this, tort reform does nothing more than short everyday Oklahomans of their ability to have access to the courthouse. For instance, "according to the Federation of Medical Boards, Oklahoma moved to 4th per capita for number of doctors in 2005. This is up from 6th per capita in 2005. PLICO, which insures most Oklahoma doctors, states that "We're doing fine said Carl T. Hook, M.D., President of PLICO. The first six months of this year we have a net income of 21 Million, which will be applied to the company's reserves. Carl T. Hook, M.D., Journal Record, July 26th, 2005. "Over the last year or so, Hook said he has seen a trend toward more reasonable jury awards, which he attributed to the public education provided by extensive media coverage of lawsuit reform issues. Carl T. Hook, M.D., Journal Record, July 26th, 2005." "By the end of 2005, PLICO had actually seen a 36% reduction from the previous two years in defense and settlement cost. This allowed PLICO to outperform projected expectations by 39%." "In December 31, 2005, PLICO had the lowest number of open claims since the early to mid 1980s." Darrin McKelvey, Director of Marketing at PLICO, PLICO Newsletter, 1st Quarter, 2006. "The average loss payments per case fell 49% from 2003 to 2005. The pending number of claims has also been significantly reduced from 2004 to 2005 by 35%." Sam Glover, Esquire and Assistant Claims Manager at PLICO. PLICO Newsletter, 4th Quarter, 2005. In its Rate Survey issue, October, 2006, Medical Liability Monitor found that Oklahoma still has lower medical malpractice rates than Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas. Medical Liability Monitor, October 2006, Vol. 31, No. 10. In 2006, PLICO did not raise its rates and the other two carriers dropped their rates on some coverages and on others had a modest increase (one in which still put them as lower than the other two providers.) Medical Liability Monitor, Rate Survey Issue, October 2006, Vol. 31, No 10."

Nationally caps on non-economic damages will not lower malpractice premiums for doctors who are the highest wage earners in Oklahoma. The two largest insurers of doctors in the country stated before Congress or state legislatures, there is no correlation between caps and rates; rates will not go down. The Congressional Budget Office, General Accounting Office, Columbia University, University of Texas, and the University of Illinois studied caps and their effect on rates and all concluded there is no correlation. Over the past 10 years, malpractice rates rose 12 percent higher in states with caps than without. Insurers have deceived doctors into believing tort reform will provide relief. The truth is: insurance companies are using litigation as an excuse to raise rates. Litigation impacts their rates by less than 2 percent. Where does the money go? AIG, one of the two largest malpractice insurers, raised rates 60 percent in the last three years. In the first two years, its profits went from $326 million to $1.84 billion. The third year, they rose to $10 billion. The Wall Street Journal stated mismanaged pricing and accounting practices are the reason for malpractice premium increases, not claims. Claims actually decreased 1 percent over the last 10 years. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the highest paying occupations in America are doctors. The highest percentage of gross pay for malpractice coverage is 12.4 percent. The lowest is 1.8 percent."

From the above, I found that tort reform won't help doctors. The evidence is there from 30 states. Doctors and the public have been misled.

Obviously the Oklahoma Republican Party (don't confuse them with conservatives as I am a conservative and want no association with this party), Big Business, Big Insurance, and Big Oil's so-called tort reform bill, was a grotesque attempt to destroy Oklahoma's Civil Justice System.

Contrary to Coffee and Cargill's commentary, this bill, which originated in the Senate, was rushed through the Oklahoma House of Representatives wherein only republican-authored amendments were considered. House Democrat amendments were pushed aside for partisan reasons. In effect, this bill was amended to include dozens of broad-sweeping and unimaginable changes to our civil justice system which strongly favor the interests of negligent tortfeasors and their insurance companies. In the Senate, the bill was introduced for an up or down vote, wherein all 24 Republican Senators voted for the bill despite the fact that many of these Republican Senators acknowledged serious problems with the bill as written. The Republican Senators were joined in their vote for the bill by Senator Paddock, the wife of a physician and PLICO board member.

Truth is, their was no negotiations before this bill came before the governor. Republicans don't want a fair bill that preserves the rights of citizens while helping to curtail the few frivolous lawsuits that make it beyond a judge's dismissal. They want a bill the governor will veto. Why? Simple, they are going to come to you doctors and Oklahoma businessmen and women asking for more money next year, then the next, then the next. They purposefully put this bill knowing it would be vetoed and knowing it's a bad bill.

I am not going to go through and discredit the numerous unconstitutional, overbroad, and prejudicial aspects of this bill, as I am sure many others most likely have. Instead, I want to point out the hypocrisy behind the passage of this bill from the Oklahoma Republican party and its elected officials.

I spent much of the past few weeks at the Capitol discussing this bill and its effects with numerous Senators, including many Republican Senators. What I gleaned from these conversations truly troubles me. Many of the Republican Senators I discussed the bill with admitted that the bill was problematic and that they did not agree with many of the provisions of such, but informed me that they would be voting for the bill nonetheless. Therefore, these elected officials admitted that, despite the fact that they knew that many of the provisions contained in the bill are overbroad, unconstitutional, and would negatively affect the rights of Oklahomans and your constituents, they would vote for the bill because they had received their marching orders from party leadership and because the biggest donors to their campaigns and prospective reelections had ordered them to. These Republican Senators admitted that their party and political aspirations are more important to them than the rights of their constituents to have fair and balanced access to justice in the Court of Law and admitted that politics are more important than people.

I appreciated these Republican Senators' honesty in admitting to the people of Oklahoma that the directives of their party's leadership, and from the rich and powerful who funded their campaigns, trump their well-known duties to represent the people who elected them.

Due to the undisputed prejudicial and self-serving motive behind the passage of this bill by the Oklahoma Republican party and the obvious cruel and hurtful effect passage of such a bill would have on the citizens of Oklahoma, in order to further horde money in the pocketbooks of big business, big insurance and the medical profession, and, in turn, the Oklahoma Republican party, I am thankful that the Governor vetoed this horrible and disgraceful bill.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeremy Thurman

Infant Near Drowning - Remember Water Safety Does Not Stop With Summer

Jeremy Thurman — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:39:06 GMT

I recently came across an article regarding the near drowning death of a Nine-Month-Old Child in Tulsa Oklahoma.

Apparently a mother had a 19-month old showering with the 9-month old outside the tub. She was in another room doing chores when she went to check on the children. According to the article

When she went in to check on the children, the child taking the shower, that's when she found the nine month old infant outside of the tub in a puddle of water and it was lifeless and breathless at that point.

This story reiterates an important safety tips for parents of all children. One to two inches of water can be hazardous to a child. Just because summer ends and pools close doesn’t mean our children are safe for the seasons to come. The US Consumer Products Safety Commission reports that at least 459 children younger than 5 drowned at home from 1996 through 1999 and since 1984 over 275 children have drown in buckets. A child can drown as quick as it takes to answer a phone. Kids are curious around water and the splashing is inviting but can quickly become deadly. Children under the age of 1 most often drown in bathtubs, buckets, and toilets. Children aged 1 to 4 often drown in swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas. Children aged 5 to 14 most often drown in swimming pools, lakes, and rivers.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offer safety tips for protecting your children around water such as emptying buckets, pans, and bathtubs of water, keeping door closed to bathroom unless with child, locking toilets, and having safety knobs.

If you do find a child who is lifeless stay calm and remember your 123’s & ABC’s of CPR. Knowing and practicing CPR can change a deadly situation into a life saving one.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeremy Thurman

Should The Legal Drinking Age Be Changed from 21 to 18?

Jeremy Thurman — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:55:28 GMT

I recently read where a group of college presidents want to lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 in an attempt to combat binge drinking on their campuses. The story is foxnews.com and discusses the basis for why the group wants to lower the legal age.

The FOX article states that Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) “says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes.” I went to the MADD website and saw where they had reported that “of the over 159 million alcohol-impaired driving trips estimated that Americans took in 2002, over ten percent (18 million trips) were made by 18-20 year olds.” They further reported that the frequency and amounts of teen drinking has consistently increased over the last few decades.

So since this is opinion driven, I want to state my opinion on whether eighteen year olds should be able to buy alcohol. I believe it would be a dangerous situation for our motorists and pedestrians. Many kids this age are mature enough to handle it, but I believe more are not. This would equate to giving kids access to alcohol and I find it doubtful they understand the full consequences of drinking and driving.

I would wager that should the law change, we would see an exponential increase in DUI’s for 18 – 20 year olds and in turn more dangerous accidents.

Simply, I say no to decreasing the legal age to buy alcohol.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeremy Thurman

Oklahoma Good Samaritan Killed While Rendering Aid to Car Accident Victims

Jeremy Thurman — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:39:13 GMT

A 63-year-old Jay Oklahoma man was killed Sunday when he was struck by a vehicle while attempting to render aid to victims of a car accident in Delaware County, Oklahoma.

According to the Joplin Globe, a 63 year-old Oklahoman died at the scene about 14 miles northeast of Jay. Apparently, a Grove Oklahoma couple was southbound on Oklahoma Highway 20 when their car ran off the road on a curve and struck a tree at 11:57 a.m.

The article states that:

Peter Holland came to their aid and was standing just off the roadway when a southbound vehicle driven by Timothy Eyres, 54, of Grove, ran off the road on the same curve at 12:17 p.m. and struck Holland, the patrol said.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Mr. Holland and those injured. We live in a state where we are blessed with men and women who seem to be there to lend a hand to people in crisis. It’s always tragic when people lose their lives in an effort to save others.

While we are not aware of whether any hazard or warning lights were on, this car accident is a grim reminder of our duties as drivers to remain alert and to pay proper attention to the roadway ahead.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeremy Thurman

Oklahoma Dog Bites - A Continued Discussion on Breeds

Jeremy Thurman — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:58:00 GMT

I recently posted a blog entitled “Dangerous Dogs - Does Breed Matter.” The blog elicited quite a response from what appear to be “pit-bull” enthusiasts to those who would prefer dangerous breeds be closely regulated by law enforcement officials. The majority of the comments seemed focused on what I deem an overly zealous defense of these dogs.

While I do believe many if not most dog bite occurrences are the result of poor owners, we can’t discount that there may be a predisposition for certain breeds to have an overly aggressive nature. I think it only logical that some breeds were originally selectively bred for fighting. We can name several breeds that have characteristics, often bred into them, that make them have a greater tendency for aggression and have certain qualities such as a strong jaw. These characteristics make them more dangerous to humans should they display aggression toward people.

Nonetheless, any breed of dog can bite but there are certain breeds that simply cause greater harm and possibly death. I’m a parent of three lovely girls. I will go to the ends of the earth to protect them from harm. Whether dog enthusiasts like it or not, the reality is if I see a “pit-bull” or “Shar Pei” or any dogs of similar stature loose and around my kids, I am more fearful for their safety than if I see a stray Poodle. With that in mind, I will deal with these breeds that have a more aggressive nature coupled with their size differently than I will deal with a 10 lb dog. In summation, the reality is these aggressive breeds pose a more dangerous risk to people regardless of environmental factors by pure virtue of their strength.

Whether we like it or not, the breed of dog involved in a bite case will impact the way that I handle it. From a logical standpoint, the more aggressive and stronger breeds typically cause more extensive damage. However, as stated in previous blogs, those injured by dog attacks in Oklahoma, regardless of breeds should hire legal representation. Contrary to what insurance would like you to think, a dog in Oklahoma does not have to have a dangerous propensity or to have bitten someone before. In fact, Oklahoma is a strict liability state in most circumstances when it comes to dog bites. Essentially this means that just the fact that you are the owner of the dog that bit someone is enough to hold you responsible for the dog bite and allow the injured to recover the full amount of his damages from you.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeremy Thurman

Disc Herniation

Jeremy Thurman — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:12:00 GMT

One of the more commonly injured parts of the body in a car or truck accident is the back and spinal column. As a result of the force and speed involved in automobile accidents, many injuries sustained by those involved is a herniated disc. The discs within the spinal column are soft and malleable, which buffer the hard bones of the vertebrae. These allow for flexibility and mobility of the spinal column and act as shock absorbers for our body. These discs are not indestructible however, if injured in an automobile accident the cushioning affect from these discs may be destroyed causing pain to radiate to different parts of the body due to the heavy concentration of nerves running along the spinal column.

There are many options for those with herniated discs, including conservative treatments and surgical treatments. The conservative treatments involve rest, rehabilitation, medication, osteopathic manipulations, physical therapy, and epidural steroid injections. These conservative alleviations are for patients that do not report severe pain and can function without too much detriment for a period that the treatment usually covers. Most of the alternatives to surgery take up to twelve weeks before a patient reports normal range of motion and little to no discomfort.

After this period of conservative care, surgery may be recommended for those who do not recover as quickly. Surgery is designed to alleviate pain and help the patient recover more quickly. Treatments for a herniated disc include microdiscetomy, lumbar laminectomy, and microendoscopic surgery. Microdiscetomy is the most common of these procedures. This involves removal of a small portion of the bone that is located over the nerve that is being impinged, to provide the nerve with ample room to heal. This surgery is normally provided for those that are experiencing leg pain resulting from a herniated disc.

If you or anyone you know has been the victim of a automobile accident and suffering from lower back pain, or other pain that may be related to a herniated disc, please seek medical care and legal representation immediately. Your health should be your first priority when involved in such an accident.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeremy Thurman

Things to Never Tell an Adjuster – “I’m Not Injured”

Jeremy Thurman — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:13:00 GMT

As an Oklahoma City car accident attorney a common battle I face on a daily basis is the adjuster telling me I have your client recorded stating “I’m not injured.”

In almost every circumstance, the adjuster has two goals when he or she makes contact with you immediately following an automobile accident. First, they always want you to say that your “at fault.” Secondly, if there is no way around liability, they want you to say “I’m not injured.” Why? Its quite simple they want to use this statement in a potential settlement and/or litigation to show that you are lying about your injuries regardless of the truth.

You have to realize that car wreck injuries do not immediately show up. Often, pain does not show up until a few days after the car accident. For example, brain trauma may not immediately manifest itself and sometimes shows up in the following days with symptoms of dizziness, vomiting and light sensitivity. Other “soft tissue” injuries such as whiplash and back strains also may not show immediately do the adrenaline rush many people experience after a car wreck.

Accordingly, its important to never admit that you are not injured and always contact an attorney to maneuver you around the potholes that an experienced insurance adjuster will try to get you to fall in.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeremy Thurman