Blog

Are you out of luck if you are the victim of a hit and run while on a bike?

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Rick Kriseman

Say you’re like 27 year old Joseph Mosby, riding your bike down the road, minding your own business, when suddenly and without warning, you get hit from behind by a car. To make matters worse, the car doesn’t stop to see if you’re ok. Instead, it speeds off.

What do you do? Whose going to pay for any medical care you need if you were injured. Is leaving the scene of an accident with injuries illegal?

Unfortunately for Mr. Mosby, of Port Richey, these are questions that he probably never thought nor wished he would be asking.

Early Thursday morning, on January 19, 2012, Mr. Mosby was riding his bike headed south on Little Road, just south of Rancho del Rio Drive, when he was hit from behind. According to the Florida Highway Patrol, the vehicle which struck Mr. Mosby immediately left the scene of the accident. The vehicle was described as a silver or gray newer model two door passenger car. Not surprisingly, the vehicle sustained significant damage to its windshield and front end.

Trooper Evans of FHP has requested that anyone with information about this accident contact him, as Mr. Mosby ended up being transported to Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point for treatment of serious injuries.

So what exactly does the law say about leaving the scene of an accident, is it different if the accident is between a car and a bike, a car and a pedestrian, or a car and another car?

Who pays for the medical bills in an accident between a car and a bike, a car and a pedestrian, or a car and another car?

Let’s first look at the law relating to crashes involving personal injury or death.

Florida Statute 316.027 is the statute which addresses the obligations of drivers when they are involved in an accident involving an injury of death.

Specifically, when a person is injured in an accident, Section 1(a), says

“The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property that results in injury of any person must immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and must remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062.”

For those who die as a result of their injuries, we look to Section 1(b), which says

“The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property that results in the death of any person must immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and must remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062.”

As you will notice, both of these sections indicate that the driver of the vehicle must remain at the scene until he or she has fulfilled their duties under 316.62, which is a section entitled “Duty to Give Information and Render Aid”.

As you will also notice, FS 316.027 does not differentiate between accidents involving a car and a bike, a pedestrian or another car. It simply states that the driver of ANY vehicle involved in a crash must immediately stop at the scene.

So in Mr. Mosby’s case, the fact that he was on a bike didn’t affect the obligation of the driver who hit him to immediately stop her vehicle and remain at the scene until she complied with the requirements of FS 316.062.

Great, so now Mr. Mosby knows what the other driver was required to do and didn’t do, that doesn’t help him with getting his medical bills paid. Who’s going to pay his bills?

To answer that question, we need to answer two additional questions – 1) does Mr. Mosby own a car and if so, does he have auto insurance on that car; and 2) if he does not own a car, does Mr. Mosby live with a family member who owns a car with an auto insurance policy

The answers to these questions are important because of Florida Statute 617.736, which clearly states the circumstances in which coverage will apply.

It is Section 4(e) of FS 627.736 which defines who is eligible for medical coverage under a Personal Injury Protection policy of insurance in Florida and under what circumstances.

For Mr. Mosby, whether he was riding his bike, was a pedestrian, or was driving his car would make no difference, IF Mr. Mosby owns an insured car, the fact that he was injured when he was struck by another car satisfies the requirements of 4(e)(1), which says

“Accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by the owner while occupying a motor vehicle, or while not an occupant of a self-propelled vehicle if the injury is caused by physical contact with a motor vehicle.” (emphasis added)

What if Mr. Mosby didn’t own a car, and was riding his bike because that was his only means of transportation. Would this same section apply? No. Section 4(e)(1) would not apply because he was not the owner of an insured motor vehicle.

However, if at the time of the accident, he was living with a relative who owned a car, under section 4(e)(3), that relative’s auto insurance would pay his medical bills. Again, even if he was riding a bike or walking.

Section 4(e)(3) says

“Accidental bodily injury sustained by a relative of the owner residing in the same household, under the circumstances described in subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2., provided the relative at the time of the accident is domiciled in the owner’s household and is not himself or herself the owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which security is required…”

So if Mr. Mosby is going to get his medical bills paid in this matter, he either has to own an insured car himself, or live with a relative who owns an insured car.

If neither of those two options apply to his case, his only other hope is that law enforcement is able to track down the person that hit him, and if they do, hope that person has the required auto insurance. If they do, Mr. Mosby’s medical bills will be paid under Section 4(e)(4), which says

“ Accidental bodily injury sustained in this state by any other person while occupying the owner’s motor vehicle or, if a resident of this state, while not an occupant of a self-propelled vehicle, if the injury is caused by physical contact with such motor vehicle,….”

Let’s hope, for Mr. Mosby’s sake, that he recovers from his injuries, and that one of the sections cited which provide coverage, ends up applying to his situation.

Posted in Auto Accidents, BI Coverage, Bicyclist accident, bodily injury, Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Statutes, pedestrian, PIP Insurance, Rick Kriseman | Leave a comment

FOR-PROFIT UNIVERSITIES – THE NEXT BUBBLE TO BURST?

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Rick Kriseman

The for-profit university system is the fastest growing sector in higher education in this country. These Universities have experienced explosive growth over the past 10 years.

While there are many of these Universities who provide a good, quality education, for too many of the For-Profit Universities, the driving force of their existence isn’t a commitment to providing a well-rounded education. Rather, it’s a profit-driven motive. The more students that are enrolled in the school, the more revenue for the school.

Lower admission standards, and enrollment increases. Who cares whether graduation rates plummet. Promise “high paying jobs” after graduation, and enrollment increases. Who care if the “high paying jobs” promised never materialize.

The largest for-profit institution, the University of Phoenix, owned by the Apollo Group, Inc., has a student body of more than 440,000 students. That’s more than all of the universities in the Big Ten combined.

Next on the list of players is EDMC, Education Management Corporation. This company, which is 40% owned by Goldman Sachs, runs four for-profit schools – The Art Institute, Argosy University, South University, and Brown-Mackie University. Other large for-profit players are ITT Educational Services, Inc., Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, and Corinthian Colleges, Inc.

The explosive growth of the for-profit industry hasn’t gone unnoticed. Because nearly 90% of the revenue at some for-profits colleges comes solely from federal student loan programs, the federal government has begun looking into the practices at many for-profit schools.

Leading the investigation into these practices is Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. As the Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Senator Harkin’s committee has interviewed hundreds of former students, teachers, and employees of for-profit schools, and what they have documented is that many of these schools are deliberately misleading potential students into enrolling in programs that they will never graduate from, and incurring loans that they will never be able to repay.

Sen. Harkin’s committee found that for-profits tend to charge more for tuition than comparable public schools, spend a large share of revenues on expenses unrelated to teaching, and experience high drop-out rates.

Here are just a few statistics from Sen. Harkin’s committee that are worth noting.

1. While almost 90% of total revenues came directly from the federal government, 57% of the students enrolled between 2008 – 2009 have departed without a diploma.

2. Data from the Dept. of Ed stated that in 2008-2009, for-profits enrolled more than 1.8 million students, which was less than 10% of all Higher Ed. students, yet, they received 23% of all federal aid dollars and accounted for 44% of the loan defaults.

3. Profits at 16 of the largest for-profit schools totaled 2.7 BILLION dollars in 2009. Between fiscal year 2009 and 2010, one school alone saw its profits grow from $235 million to $411 million.

4. The cost to attend a for-profit school in comparison to a community college or public university is considerably higher, and students at for-profit colleges are 8x more likely to graduate with a debt larger than $20,000.00.

Which is precisely why some view For-profit colleges as the next federal financing bubble to burst.

So why should we be concerned about this? Why should we care about what happens to these students who incur thousands in student loans and have no degree to show for it?

First, because it’s wrong.

Second, as taxpayers, we should be incensed. At a time when we are facing budget deficits, when programs which help the middle class, small businesses, the elderly, children, and those with disabilities are being slashed, many of these for-profits are taking advantage of government assistance and making billions in profits on the back of taxpayers.

And lastly, we should care because this issue and the future of for-profit universities has reared its head in the 2012 Presidential campaign.

Now, this is not a democrat vs. republican thing, nor am I writing about this for political reasons or because I favor one candidate over another, I am writing about this out of concern for the thousands of students who have already been victimized by the for-profit system, and because there is a real possibility that under the leadership of some of the Presidential candidates, we could see an even greater expansion, and with it, victimization, in the for-profit college arena.

In a story which appeared in the Boston Globe on January 15, 2012, it was reported that at a New Hampshire town-hall style meeting, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the audience that his solution to the rising cost of higher education was for students to consider for-profit colleges.

A week later in Iowa, the Globe reported Romney stated that by increasing competition among colleges, for-profit institutions “hold down the cost of education and help students get jobs without saddling them with excessive debt.”

We are still trying to get over the burst in the housing bubble, are we really ready for the next bubble to burst?

Posted in EDMC, For Profit Colleges, for-profit universities, Rick Kriseman | Leave a comment

FDA Orders Vaginal Mesh Manufacturers To Study Product’s Safety and Effectiveness

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Lucas, Green & Magazine

The Food and Drug Administration which oversees all medical device products such as the transvaginal mesh has ordered the 31 companies who produce the vaginal mesh to undertake a 3 year study and report on the product’s safety and effectiveness. The order comes in the wake of a torrent of complaints concerning the vaginal mesh which had been approved by the FDA to treat female urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

In spite of the notoriety surrounding the vaginal mesh implants, 300,000 medical devices were implanted in women during 2010. According to Business Week, “The Food and Drug Administration wrote J&J, C.R. Bard and 31 other manufacturers, telling them to conduct three years of trials on safety and effectiveness, the agency’s William Maisel said yesterday in a telephone interview. An FDA report in July found a fivefold jump in deaths, injuries or malfunctions tied to the products. Almost 300,000 synthetic meshes were implanted in U.S. women in 2010 to treat incontinence or shore up pelvic muscles, the agency estimates. The devices’ alleged failures have spurred more than 650 lawsuits against manufacturers and heightened scrutiny of the FDA program that cleared the products for sale without human testing.”

“Now these companies are going to have to tell the truth,” said Lana Keeton, a mesh recipient and patient advocate from Austin, Texas. While companies say implants are safe, “up until now, there’s been no data,” she said. “It’s all been marketing.”

Posted in Defective Products | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

RIP Mary Raftery-Irish Journalist Who Exposed Child Abuse

Posted on January 16, 2012 by James Magazine

For the thousands of Irish children who lived through the Dickensian hell of the Irish industrial schools, Mary Raftery was a heroine. She died last week at the age of 54 of cancer. In 1999, Raftery exposed the Irish boarding schools, financed by the Irish government but administered by private religious institutions such as the Catholic Church, for the inhumane and cruel torture they inflicted upon many of the young boys and girls who were sent to the schools.

Raftery produced a 3-part documentary entitled “States of Fear” that exposed these schools for the crimes they perpetrated against Irish children for the better part of the 20th century. According to the NY Times, “In examining the state child-care system in Ireland, the series brought to light a Dickensian network of reformatories and residential schools for poor, neglected and abandoned children known as industrial schools. The schools, which were financed and supervised by the government and managed largely by religious orders, mainly Roman Catholic, served about 30,000 children from the 1930s to the 1990s, according to a government report in 2009. The films, making poignant use of interviews with victims, focused on the system in midcentury and presented a horrifying litany of torments the young people suffered at the schools: beatings, semi-starvation, insufficient clothing, filthy living conditions, overwork, emotional abuse and sexual assault.”

In order to appreciate the magnitude and importance of “States of Fear” one must understand the power and influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland. It took a great deal of courage and journalistic integrity for Raftery to embark upon such a project.

“What television can do, if you get it right, is it can concentrate and focus a story at a particular time, and make people face it and make people furious,” Ms. Raftery said in a television interview in 2010. “So it was a question of constructing a series of programs that wouldn’t allow people to go back into denial again, in other words that the body of evidence would be so overwhelming that it could not be denied anymore.”

“The documentary series and the public outcry it engendered prompted the Irish prime minister, Bertie Ahern, to apologize publicly. “The government wishes to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue,” he said, speaking before the Irish Parliament on May 11, 1999.”

May she rest in peace knowing she helped countless sexual abuse survivors tell their story and reclaim their dignity.

Posted in Priest Abuse | Leave a comment

Berkeley Prep Swim Coach Arrested, Charged with Computer Pornography

Posted on January 13, 2012 by Lucas, Green & Magazine

An assistant swim coach at Berkeley Preparatory High School in Tampa has been arrested and charged with more than 100 counts of possession of child pornography on his computer. While the investigation is ongoing, law enforcement officials have said that none of the images thus far appear to involve students at the school.
jay goldstein Berkeley Prep Swim Coach Arrested, Charged with Computer Pornography

According to www.tbo.com, “Jay Elliott Goldstein’s personal computer were of students at the school. Goldstein, 52, a non-faculty assistant swim and dive coach at the school, was arrested early this morning, said Hillsborough County sheriff’s spokeswoman Debbie Carter. He remained in jail this afternoon. Bail was set at $750,000, jail records show. Detectives discovered Goldstein on the Internet trying to download child pornography from websites where such material is offered, Carter said.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The latest on the Chinese Drywall settlement with Knauf

Posted on January 13, 2012 by Rick Kriseman

As I previously bogged about, on December 15, 2011, a tentative settlement was reached in the MDL case against Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin (KPT).

On December 20, 2011, the terms of the settlement were filed with the Court, with those same terms being described in that blog posting. Since that posting, several things have happened which merited posting.

On January 4, 2012, the Court held a preliminary settlement hearing after which the Court entered an Order taking the matter into consideration.

On January 10, 2012, the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the settlement and directing that a Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of the Knauf Class Action be prepared and sent to all persons who were a party to the suit prior to December 9, 2011.

As such sometime in the very near future, everyone who was a party to the MDL suit against Knauf (approximately 4500 property owners) will be receiving the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement document.

The following is a summary of what the Notice will state and the reasons the notice is being sent.

First, the notice is being sent for two reasons – 1) to advise plaintiffs of the proposed settlement and terms of the settlement; and 2) to provide plaintiffs with notice of their right to opt-out of the settlement.

In the Notice, it states that there are three subclasses of Plaintiffs. There is the Residential Subclass, which applies to those who have resided or continue to reside in the affected property;

There is the Commercial Subclass, which applies to those plaintiffs who have never lived on the property and merely purchased it to run a business out of the property, or to lease it or sell it; and

There is the Tenant subclass. As you might expect, this subclass applies to those who are renting affected properties.

There will be a “remediation fund” established, which will be unlimited, meaning Knauf will continue to deposit money into this fund until such time as all of the Plaintiffs have either had their homes remediated or have been paid under the cash-out option.

Each participating Plaintiff will have three options to choose from under the remediation fund: 1) Program contractor remediation – where the contractor approved by Knauf and the Plaintiff’s steering committee performs the remediation on the affected home; 2) Self remediation – where a contractor of the property owner’s choice, who must be licensed, insured and bonded, performs the remediation on the home; or 3) the cash-out option – where the Plaintiff is provided with a cash payment with no obligation to remediate, but must take steps to ensure that any subsequent purchaser is aware of the Chinese drywall.

Under both options 1 and 2, plaintiffs will receive a payment to cover the costs of moving and storage during remediation, and to pay for any personal property, such as appliances, computers, flat screens, etc. that were damaged by the drywall.

If a plaintiff had already remediated their property prior to the settlement, they could seek reimbursement of those costs and would also be entitled to seek benefits from the “other loss” fund.

Speaking of the “other loss” fund, it is this fund that will reimburse plaintiffs for the alternative living expenses incurred when they have to move out for the remediation. If the Plaintiff is a commercial property owner, this fund would reimburse the plaintiff for their economic loss arising from their inability to use or rent the property and/or for carrying costs (i.e. interest expenses) arising from an inability to sell the property.

It is this fund which will also pay for any bodily injury claims. However, because Knauf is specifically denying that the drywall caused bodily injuries, they are requiring that anyone making a claim for bodily injuries MUST have sought medical care prior to the date of the settlement, AND the claimant’s medical provider must issue a report which indicates that the condition was caused by the drywall exposure.

This fund will NOT pay claims for stigma to the property, injury to reputation, loss of enjoyment of the home, psychological or emotional damages, medical monitoring, injury to reputation, credit rating loss, legal or accounting expenses, or loss of investment opportunities.

Once completed, Plaintiffs MUST execute a release of all claims against Knauf and any of the defendants in the supply chain, PROVIDED that those defendants contributed to the remediation fund. If they did not contribute, then the release will not include that defendant.

For any plaintiff accepted into the pilot program, if remediation had begun on the home, the settlement would not affect that plaintiff.

Now let’s talk about the right to opt-out of the settlement.

All plaintiffs have the right to opt-out of the settlement. Any plaintiff who opts-out will be excluded from sharing in the benefits of the settlement. That Plaintiff would, however, be free to pursue an individual claim against Knauf. They would not benefit from nor be bound by any further orders or judgments in the litigation.

For any Plaintiff who does choose to opt-out, they must send a request to do so to Settlement Class Counsel, Arnold Levine, and Counsel for Knauf, Kerry Miller, on or before April 6, 2012. Any objections to the settlement must also be sent to the parties noted by April 6, 2012.

The fairness hearing is scheduled for June 20 – 21, 2012. At this hearing, the Court will consider any objections to the settlement filed, along with all arguments in opposing to and in support of the settlement, and will enter an order either approving, modifying or disapproving the settlement.

The Plaintiff’s steering committee and settlement class counsel, after weighing the benefits that the class members will receive against the probabilities of success and failure, and the time involved in litigating if no settlement were agreed upon, all believe that this settlement is in the best interests of the Class, and that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.

For those who decide to go against the recommendations of the steering committee and opt-out, they would need to pursue a case against Knauf on their own, which COULD take years before a settlement or court decision were reached.

Additionally, the costs involved in litigating the case would be astronomical, so the decision to opt-out should not be made lightly.

Keep checking our blog often for updates, as new information becomes available.

Posted in bodily injury, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

More Bad News for Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph: A Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Posted on January 12, 2012 by James Magazine

It’s not surprising that in a Diocese rife with sexual abuse allegations another type of sexual abuse case surfaces. This time a former employee of the Diocese has filed a civil lawsuit against the Diocese for sexual harassment.

A whistleblower named Larry Probst has filed a new lawsuit that alleges more bad behavior on the part of diocesan administration officials. According to www.pitch.com, “Probst worked at the diocese as a part-time archivist at the Chancery office. He started in 1999 or 2000 on an intermittent basis and then “on a more regular, permanent, part-time basis” in 2007. His lawsuit says the “unwanted and unwelcome sexual harassment from his supervisory priests” and from a co-worker started in spring 2010 and continued until June 30, 2011, when he was fired for what he claims was retaliation for complaining about the unwanted advances.

The lawsuit says the Rev. Charles Michael Coleman, who served as Archivist for the Chancery, hired his friend, a man named Michael St. George, to do data entry from the sacramental records into a computer program called “Parish-Soft.” The lawsuit alleges that Coleman and the Rev. Robert Cameron “fawned over” St. George in front of Probst. The lawsuit says Coleman, Cameron and others would talk “about St. George in sexually suggestive ways … in the presence of” Probst.

The lawsuit also alleges that St. George made unwanted sexual advances toward Probst, creating “a sexually hostile work environment.”

Posted in Priest Abuse | 1 Comment

Bishop Finn Begins Prosecutor-Mandated Parish Meetings

Posted on January 11, 2012 by Lucas, Green & Magazine

Bishop Robert Finn, the Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese, has begun meeting with his local parishes in order to comply with a prosecutor’s order. The order allows the Bishop to avoid facing criminal charges for his alleged failure to report crimes of sexual abuse. The abuse in question concerned a now-jailed priest, Fr. Shawn Ratigan who faces multiple criminal charges related to the sexual abuse of children and possession of child pornography on his personal computer.

According to the National Catholic Reporter, “At Saturday’s meeting with parishioners at St. Charles Borromeo parish north of the Kansas City downtown area, much of the presentation was made by staff members of the diocese’s child protection offices, said Mercy Sr. Jeanne Christensen, a member of neighboring Holy Family parish who attended the event.

While Finn made opening remarks, Christensen said most of the talking was lead by Jenifer Valenti, the diocesan ombudsman for reporting abuse, and Carrie Cooper, its new director of child and youth protection.

Christensen said about 50 people attended the meeting, which lasted about an hour and 15 minutes.”

Posted in Priest Abuse | Leave a comment

Personal Injury Protection is once again under attack.

Posted on January 10, 2012 by Rick Kriseman

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I planned on blogging this session about legislation that could impact your rights. Today, I want to discuss a bill which will drastically change impact auto insurance as we know it in Florida.

Tomorrow morning, in the Banking and Insurance Subcommittee in the Florida House, PCS for HB 119 will be considered. This bill, originally sponsored by Representative Jim Boyd, will not only make it more difficult to make a claim under PIP, but will also make it more difficult to ensure that your insurance company pays the claims for your medical bills.

First, let’s talk about what CURRENT law provides, then I’ll explain the changes being proposed.

Under current Florida law (FS 627.736), your insurance company is required to pay 80% (minus any deductible) of your medical bills up to your policy limits (which are typically $10,000.00, unless you purchased additional coverage).

Whether you are treating with an orthopaedic surgeon, a chiropractor, or a dentist, if the treatment was related to your auto accident, your insurance carrier has to pay this bill. It also does not matter how soon you begin treatment. If you decide to wait a week after the accident occurred, hoping you will feel better, and when you don’t, you decide to seek treatment, that’s ok under current law.

So for example, you are in an accident, you are injured and receive medical care at your Chiropractor’s office. He charges you $100.00 for this visit. If your doctor timely submits his bill to your insurance company, they will be required to pay him $80.00

Currently, if the insurance company wants to examine you or your doctor under oath (this is like a deposition), the insured must petition the Court for an order permitting them to do so.

So, if your insurance carrier does not believe you need to see the doctor 3 times per week, even though it is providing you with relief from your pain, it would have to petition the Court to depose you to make you state under oath whether the treatment is reliving your pain.

If your insurance company were to fail to pay or pay a reduced amount for your medical treatment, you would be able to hire an attorney, who could file suit, and if he or she were successful on your behalf, he or she would be paid a fee based solely on the amount of time spent on the case and on the complexities of the case.

For example, if your insurance carrier refused to pay a $150.00 bill for treatment, and the Court, after a trial on the merits, determined that the carrier SHOULD have paid that bill, your attorney could receive $20,000.00 in legal fees, if he or she spent enough time on the file to justify that fee and if the complexity of the case justified that fee.

If PCS for HB 119 were to pass, everything I just described would change. Let’s look at the examples I gave and see how things would change under this proposed bill.

First and most importantly, under PCS for HB 119, you are REQUIRED to go to a hospital within 72 hours of the accident for an examination. Even if you don’t feel that you need to go to the hospital, under this bill, you now HAVE to go.

So under my first example, you could not first go to a chiropractor for treatment.

What if the accident occurred on late Thursday night, and after the accident, you went home and went to sleep. Say you woke up Friday very sore, but decided to take some aspirin and rest. Saturday comes, and you are still sore. You take more aspirin and get more rest. Same thing Sunday. You wake up Monday, and you are still sore and achy. In fact, you lower back now hurts worse than it did over the weekend. Can you go to the doctor for treatment and have it paid under your PIP insurance?

Not under PCS for HB 119. Because you did not seek treatment at the hospital within 72 hours, your insurance carrier, who you have paid all those premiums to, doesn’t have to pay for ONE CENT of your treatment.

Ok, let’s say, you were transported from the accident scene to the hospital, and after x-rays and a CT scan, the ER doctor discharges you and tells you to follow up with your primary care physician or another physician. Will that follow up treatment be paid under this new proposed law?

Only if that care is rendered by a physician licensed under Florida Statutes chapters 458 or 459. This would NOT include chiropractors.

Ok, wanting to comply with the new law, you go to a doctor licensed under FS Chapter 458. That doctor has you come in to the office for treatment three times in one week. Under this bill, the insurance company, not wanting to pay for you to see a doctor three times per week, can now send that doctor a “message” by scheduling the doctor for an examination under oath (EUA) to question the doctor on why treatment three times per week is necessary.

They also can schedule YOU for an independent medical exam, where you will be examined by a doctor that THEY choose and THEY pay. Should you fail to attend this appointment twice, it will be presumed that you have unreasonably refused or failed to submit to the examinations, even if you had scheduling conflicts and the carrier wouldn’t reschedule.

Finally, the last example. Your carrier refuses to pay $150.00 for the treatment you received. Under PCS for HB 119, the maximum your attorney can receive in attorney’s fees for handling the case, no matter HOW many hours were spent in litigation, is $2,250.00.

Ok, you say, I would never file suit over $150.00.

What if your insurance carrier failed to pay a $7,500.00 bill. Would you file suit over that? Yes you say, absolutely. Unfortunately, you will probably run into the same problem – finding an attorney to handle the case. You see, under PCS for HB 119, the maximum that attorney will receive in fees is $37,500.00. That might sound like a lot, but when you consider that the attorney may work on the case for more than one year, before it even gets to trial, it isn’t such a large amount of money.

For a bill that claims to be aimed at curbing fraud in the system, it appears that all this bill will do is curb ANY CLAIMS in the system.

Guess that’s one way to get rid of fraud.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Clearwater Teenager Dies After Smoking Synthetic K2

Posted on January 9, 2012 by Lucas, Green & Magazine

A local teenager was found unresponsive early this morning after he had smoked the synthetic drug K2. The K2 purchased at a local convenience store. According to the Tampa Bay Times, “Branded as incense but also called “fake weed,” K2 and similar substances are synthetic cannabinoids much more powerful than marijuana, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Sold by the gram in brightly colored packets, the substances, when smoked, could induce giddiness and hallucinations.

Users also experienced paranoia, agitation and anxiety; high blood pressure and heart rate; and panic attacks and seizures.

Bad reactions caused spikes nationwide in calls to poison control hotlines and trips to emergency rooms, but no deaths caused by overdose have been reported, DEA records show.

The fake drugs were sold online and in drug paraphernalia shops and convenience stores before the DEA banned the use and sale of their key ingredients in March.”

Posted in Defective Products | Tagged , | Leave a comment