Our client was involved in a car accident on August 14, 2006. She was driving straight through an intersection in the Rockrimmon area of Colorado Springs when another driver, going the opposite direction, made a left turn in front of her causing a significant collision.

The other driver claimed he was not at fault. He thought our client was going to turn right at the intersection. More that three years later, during the trial, the defense admitted fault. The defense agressively disputed our client’s injuries, damages and losses during the trial.

Our client was 33 years old at the time of this car crash. This motor vehicle collision pushed her right knee into the dashboard. One of the bones in her knee joint had a fracture line. Both her wrists were injured in this motor vehicle accident. The car wreck also caused neck pain and back pain.

Our client required medical care for these injuries over the next 3 years. Her neck pain and back pain improved with medical treatment. By the time the case went to trial, however, she was still having pain and physical limitations from chronic nerve pain in her left hand and wrist. She had to take medications on a daily basis for this pain. Her medical bills amounted to more than $15,000. She had no insurance for her medical expenses. To make matters worse, she could no longer work as a property manager and lost her job.

Before trial the other driver’s insurance company, Farmers Insurance, offered to settle for $100,000. The other driver had $500,000 of liability insurance coverage. We were willing to settle if Farmers would pay the $500,000 of insurance on the other driver. They refused, and trial lawyer Tom Herd took the case to an El Paso County jury.

The jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict of $750,000.00 after a 4 day trial. With interest and court costs the other driver and Farmers Insurance will owe our client more than $995,000.00.

Many personal injury lawyers, would have persuaded their client to accept the $100,000 pre-trial settlement that was offered by the insurance company. We believed our client’s case was worth much more; she trusted us and believed we could win this personal injury trial for her.

Please view the Gaddis, Kin, Herd & Craw, P.C. disclaimer HERE.

For years news stories, and speeches of politicians – even a former President – have told us that many physicians were leaving the practice of medicine because of malpractice lawsuits. They claim the threat of legal liability, and the increasing cost of malpractice insurance in states without strong tort reform laws, is driving good doctors out of medical practice.

The data in the AMA study shows that such claims are a myth. Recent AMA data reveals that, actually, there has been a larger increase in the number of doctors in states that do not have strict “tort reform” laws – i.e. laws that restrict and limit a doctor’s liability for malpractice. This data proves that, the truth is that there is really an increase in the number of doctors in those states where doctors are exposed to higher liability verdicts and insurance premiums for malpractice.

This data proves that access to good medical care, and a fair system to compensate victims of malpractice, are not in conflict. They can and do co-exist. More doctors are now practicing in states where patients are protected by strong tort laws, and the doctors are less protected by tort reform measures limiting their liability for malpractice. The AMA study demonstrates that further tort reform is unnecessary in the medical malpractice field, contrary to many editorial news stories and the rhetoric of politicians. Indeed, the data indicates that strict tort reform may actually be detrimental to patient safety, and result in harming the patients most in need of the help from the civil justice system – those that have suffered a severe disability, or death, from medical negligence.

The AMA found that in the last five years the number of doctors has risen in all states. The number of doctors per capita was actually 13% higher in states without damage caps that limit the amount of malpractice awards.

Interestingly, this data confirms other research done by the Commonwealth Fund and the American College of Emergency Physicians. These organizations found that health care quality, and patient safety, are actually worse in states that have strict tort reform measures that reduce accountability and liability of physicians and hospitals.

The bottom line: objective data by those working within the medical industry now indisputably shows that improving patient safety, rather than limiting access to the civil justice system, should be the focus of future legislation regarding health care services and malpractice law suits.

Please contact us with any questions you may have at 719.471.3848. You can also email us HERE with your inquiry or questions. Our website can be found at www.GaddisKinHerd.com.

www.GaddisKinHerd.com

Our client was driving a compact car through a downtown intersection. While she was going through the intersection another driver going the opposite direction made a left turn in front of her. The other driver had a large pickup truck. The result was a significant collision in which the truck driver fared better than our client.

Immediately after the collision our client needed treatment for 3 fractures in small bones of her right foot. These required her to get multiple casts and to walk with crutches for many weeks. She also had neck pain, pain in her knees from hitting the dash board, back pain, headaches and a large bruise on her left elbow. Her injuries required a great deal of care over the next 3 years, including extensive chiropractic treatments, multiple courses of physical therapy, massage therapy, medications and a painful injection in her left elbow.

The driver of the pickup admitted he was at fault for the collision, but his insurance company, Allstate, maintained that our client was also at fault. They claimed that our client was speeding through the intersection as her traffic light was changing. They also claimed that our client did not get all the care and treatment that her doctors recommended for her injuries, and that was the reason for her ongoing problems.

Before trial, Allstate offered to settle the case for $63,000. Our client’s medical bills were about $24,000, her loss of income was about $14,000 and she needed surgery on her elbow that would cost her about $15,000. The insurance company’s offer was not sufficient. However, we told the truck driver and Allstate that our client would settle the case for $120,000.

By the time of trial, our client had pretty much recovered from the injuries to her neck, back and knees, and she was no longer having headaches. Her treatment had resolved those problems. However, she was still suffering from constant pain in her right foot even though the broken bones had healed. She also had chronic pain in her left elbow from nerve damage that developed as a result of the bruise on her left elbow from the collision. The ongoing pain from these two conditions caused a significant sleep disturbance. Despite our client’s ongoing problems as the trial date approached, Allstate refused to pay any more than their prior offer of $63,000. So, the case proceeded to a jury trial.

The jury returned a verdict for our client in the amount of $190,000. After interest and other adjustments the total amount recoverable by our client after trial was about $200,000.

Please view the Gaddis, Kin, Herd & Craw, P.C. disclaimer

Our client required more than 200 treatment visits to two different chiropractors to try to resolve the pain in her neck and back. Specialized injections from other medical doctors were needed for the pain and headaches caused by this car crash. Additional treatments for visual mid-line shift syndrome and cognitive rehabilitation therapy were needed to help her recover, as much as possible, from the head injury suffered in the car accident.

At trial the defense focused on the fact that our client had been in a prior car accident 3 years earlier. The previous motor vehicle accident involved a roll over incident in which our client had similar injuries - i.e. pain in her neck and back and headaches. Because of these prior injuries she treated with a chiropractor 48 times in the year before the second auto accident. The defense maintained that all of our client’s injuries and conditions were a result of the prior accident.

At trial we presented testimony from seven “before and after” witnesses. These were persons who knew our client both before and after the two car accidents. Their testimony showed the jury that there were dramatic changes in our client’s physical activities, thinking and emotional condition after the second accident, but not after the first car accident. This testimony helped the jury to see the truth - that the second car accident was really the cause of our client’s ongoing pain, injuries and conditions.

The jury gave our client a verdict of $300,000, of which $150,000 was for non-economic damages such as pain, suffering, emotional stress and loss of enjoyment of life. An additional $150,000 was given for economic losses including medical treatment bills and lost income. When prejudgment interest was added to the verdict, as required by law, our client’s total recovery exceeded $467,000.

Many lawyers would not have taken a case like this to trial because of the prior car accident. It involved similar injuries and was very close in time to the second accident. But, our client trusted us to get her a fair outcome, and we honored her trust by obtaining a successful jury verdict at trial.

Please view the Gaddis, Kin, Herd & Craw, P.C. disclaimer HERE.

In January of 2005, our client’s father had gall bladder surgery at Memorial Hospital in Colorado Springs. Dr. G, who was then practicing in Colorado Springs, was the surgeon who performed the operation. Dr. G now lives and practices in Michigan. The surgery was performed laparoscopically, i.e. by the insertion of a camera and surgical tools through 3 small incisions in the abdomen. At the start of the surgery, Dr. G saw that the patient had cirrhosis of the liver. He did not know this before surgery. Cirrhosis greatly increases the risk of bleeding complications from any surgery. Dr. G decided to go ahead anyway with the surgery, laparoscopically. When Dr. G removed the gall bladder, the patient started bleeding from his liver. Dr. G claimed that he stopped the bleeding before he sent the patient to the recovery room.

The patient was in the recovery room for nearly 3 hours. The entire time his vital signs were abnormal and there was bleeding from the site of the surgery. Dr. G eventually took the patient back to the operating room for a second surgery to stop the bleeding. However, he was not able to stop it because the patient had, by then, developed irreversible bleeding complications. The patient died shortly after the second surgery.

Our client, the patient’s daughter, filed a wrongful death claim after we evaluated the medical and legal issues in the case. We claimed that Dr. G was medically negligent and failed to give our client’s father informed consent of the risks of the surgery.

Dr. G maintained that he had done nothing wrong and that the patient’s death was just an unfortunate risk of surgery. Nonetheless, he offered to settle the case for $10,000. Our client would not accept that offer. Ten days before trial our client offered to settle the case for $150,000.00. At the time of the surgery her dad was retired and there was no loss of income as a result of his death. Dr. G rejected that offer and preferred to take the case to trial.

After trial, a jury of six El Paso County citizens returned a verdict in favor of our client after finding that Dr. G was medically negligent. The total our client recovered for her father’s wrongful death was approximately $300,000.

Please view the Gaddis, Kin, Herd & Craw, P.C. disclaimer HERE.