Your Voice For Justice

I’m sure everyone has heard of “frivolous lawsuits” and how they are to blame for rising insurance costs, driving doctors away, and the decline of Western Civilization as we know it today. The truth of the matter is certain politicians have created the fear that there are “runaway juries” which will destroy America unless there is so-called “tort reform”! Why do they want to do this? Easy. Big Insurance and Big Business lined the pockets of these politicians to push their agendas. Big Insurance and Big Businesses do not want to be held accountable for their actions. They want to be protected. Below we have listed some of the popular “Myths” in the justice systems along with the actual “Facts”. You read and decide for yourselves

1) MYTH: Frivolous lawsuits are flooding our legal system.

FACT: Frivolous lawsuits do not exist as represented by tort reformers.
A May 2006 study conducted by Harvard School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’’s Hospital shows that 97 percent of medical malpractice claims are meritorious . Eighty percent of those claims involved physical injury, which killed or permanently disabled the victim. Sadly, only 56 of these claimants received compensation for their losses.

FACT: The number of lawsuits has significantly decreased in recent years.
Between 2002 and 2003, the number of tort cases filed on the federal level decreased by 28 percent, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In 2005, the Justice Department reported that the number of federal cases has decreased by 79 percent since 1985.
Between 1992 and 2001, the number of civil trials filed in state courts decreased by 47 percent, according to the Department of Justice. The number of tort cases specifically, decreased by 31.8 percent during that same time.

FACT: Businesses, not consumers, are far more likely to file frivolous lawsuits.
Businesses and their attorneys are far more likely to file frivolous claims than the average American. In a recent study, 69 of the 100 most recent sanctions due to cases of frivolous lawsuits were against businesses and their attorneys. US businesses file four times as many lawsuits than private citizens.

2) MYTH: Plaintiffs are being awarded outrageous and unwarranted sums of money for their losses.

FACT: The amount of compensation awarded in personal injury cases is in decline.
The amount of compensation awarded to victims, who have been seriously injured through no fault of their own, has drastically decreased over the past few years, according to the Department of Justice. Between 1992 and 2001 the average personal injury award decreased by 56.3 percent.

FACT: The payout in medical malpractice cases has decreased over the last four years.
A 2005 Public Citizen study revealed that medical malpractice payments to victims fell nearly 14 percent between 2001 and 2004. In 2001, juries voted against injured victims in three of four medical malpractice trials, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

3. MYTH: Capping damages lowers medical malpractice insurance premiums for doctors.

FACT: Tort reform caps result in savings for insurance companies NOT doctors.
Capping damages does NOT translate into savings for doctors who continue to pay exorbitant medical malpractice insurance premiums. According to an independent research organization, “most insurers continued to increase [doctor''s] premiums at a rapid pace, regardless of caps” or reductions in plaintiff’’s awards (Weiss Ratings 6/3/03).

In states with tort reform caps on damages, the average insurance premiums are nearly ten percent higher than the average in states without caps (The Medical Liability Monitor, 2004). Take it from the insurance industry, “Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific savings [on insurance premiums]” – the American Insurance Association.

Medical malpractice insurance costs are cyclical. Litigation does not drive the cycle.
Therefore, doing away with fair compensation for victims will NOT help American citizen AND it will do nothing to help doctors who pay high insurance costs.

4. MYTH: The tort system places a $300 billion burden on the economy.

FACT: There is no such thing as a tort-tax.
The figure in the myth above comes from the insurance industry, which has a vested interest in propagating tort reform myths. In this so-called cost assessment, Tillinghast-Towers Perrin included insurance company costs, overhead, and the salaries of the insurance industry’s CEOs. For example, the salary of AIG’s chairman—a whopping $29 million a year—was figured into this supposed cost of the tort system. The TTP assessment didn’t include relevant data, which makes their figure more a reflection of the cost of the insurance industry rather than the cost of the tort system.

The idea of a “tort tax” dates back to 1988, when one man coined the term and quantified this so-called tax in a book called Liability. Several researchers immediately examined this man’’s methods of determining this tax. They found that he had made it up. “The $300 billion figure has no discernable connection to reality,” observed The Economist.

The Congressional Budget Office has repudiated the so-called tort tax.

5. MYTH: Medical malpractice claims run up the cost of healthcare.

FACT: Medical malpractice claims have a negligible effect on US health costs.
According to the Congressional Budget Office in January 2004, medical malpractice costs constituted only two percent of the total cost of healthcare in the United States. Other figures from Public Citizen show that malpractice costs represent only 0.62 percent of the nation’s expenditures for health care.
In 2003, the top HMOs in the United States reported doubling their profits, according to the Jacksonville Business Journal.

6. MTYH: Lawsuits are filed at the slightest provocation.

FACT: Many people who are seriously injured never file a claim.
Of the hundreds of thousands of people who are harmed by medical malpractice annually, only one in eight ever file a claim, according to a Harvard Study.
Of the thousands of people injured by consumer products each year, only ten percent file a claim to seek compensation for their losses and suffering, according to a study by the Rand Institute for Civil Defense.

7. MYTH: Doctors are forced to practice “defensive medicine” for fear of medical malpractice lawsuits.

FACT: No evidence indicates that doctors practice “defensive medicine” as a response to lawsuit threats.
Defensive medicine, or extra medical tests given to avoid lawsuits, is a concept developed by a member of the Bush Administration. Every independent researcher who has tried to replicate this man’s findings has been unable to do so, indicating that his findings were entirely fabricated (Public Citizen).

8. MYTH: Lawsuits threaten to drive doctors out of practice and bankrupt small businesses and factories.

FACT: Most lawsuits are not even filed against doctors or companies.
Most lawsuits involve complaints by one private citizen against another. Only 39 percent of tort lawsuits involve an individual filing a claim against a business (The Department of Justice). A lawsuit cannot destroy a business unless that business generates a profit based on fraudulent or unsafe practices (Public Citizen).

FACT: The number of lawsuits against doctors is decreasing while the number of practicing physicians is increasing.

Evidence shows that the number of lawsuits filed against doctors has declined in recent years, while the number of practicing physicians has increased. According to the American Medical Association, the number of US doctors has increased by 40 percent since 1990. Additionally, since 1990, the number of ER doctors has doubled, the number of neurosurgeons has increased by 20 percent, and the number of OB/GYN doctors has increased by 25 percent.

There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that medical malpractice claims are forcing doctors to close their doors. While some doctors have suffered due to high insurance premiums, we know these costs have nothing to do with lawsuits and are purely the product of a rapacious insurance industry.

9. MYTH: Punitive damages are awarded to often and for too much money.

FACT: Punitive damages are rarely rewarded in civil suits.
Punitive damages are only awarded in 3.3 percent of all tort trials won by the victim, according to the Department of Justice). Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant in cases of blatant or malicious wrongdoing and prevent others from committing similar acts in the future. Given the statistics, it would seem that punitive damages are very conservatively awarded to the victims of egregious acts.
OTHER FACTS

In 1995, the tobacco industry funded half the American Tort Reform Association’s budget – $5.5 million a year. The money trail of many tort reform advocacy groups is traced to big tobacco, the pharmaceutical industry, large corporate donors, auto manufacturers, and medical associations.
Less than 6 percent of the nation’s doctors are responsible for over 57 percent of the payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits. (Public Citizen 4/2005)

Of all the personal injury claims filed, only five percent are medical malpractice claims and another five percent are product liability claims. A big percentage of personal injury claims are filed by one citizen against another in a vehicle accident claim.

Victims bear the lion’s share of medical malpractice costs—including lost lives, additional medical expenses, time out of work, pain and suffering, and more.

Consumers have reason be to concerned these days. It seems that not a single day goes by without some consumer product being withdrawn or recalled due to a defect that makes it unreasonably dangerous to the consumer. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has many of these safety warnings posted and people with children are advised to check for recalls on a regular basis. Currently, most individual States have been allowed to develop their own law as it concerns consumer products and the civil liability corporations must face if their products injure a person. This law has developed by the State’s Legislatures or through the Court system, in what is called the common law.

A trend has been developing over the years that threatens to seriously harm consumers. This is called federal preemption. Preemption refers to a term that derives from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Under the Supremacy Clause, no State may pass a law that attempts to override or preempt a federal law. Obviously, this is a simplification of the law. Preemption involves many legal issues but this definition helps provide a good working knowledge of preemption. The danger of preemption is that it prohibits State’s from regulating or providing remedies for their citizens when they are injured by dangerous products. Most states in the past adopted a rule from The Restatement of Torts that placed responsibility on the manufacturer or businesses in the stream of commerce who handled the dangerous product. This method spread the risk to those companies that profited from the dangerous product and permitted them to calculate the risk into the manufacturing or distribution process.

Under the Bush Administration the process has been subverted and Federal Agencies have been attempting to preemption State tort or civil laws and replace them by Federal rules or laws. This dangerous trend has taken place in the areas of environmental protection and involves the air we breathe and water we drink. It has taken place in some areas involving the crashworthiness of automobiles, and recently it has occurred in pharmaceutical drugs. In the past ten (10) years there have been many dangerous drugs placed in the stream of commerce that have injured or killed thousands of people. There were the diet drugs, diabetes drugs and cough medicines just to name a few. The individual States have dealt with these legal issues under their tort laws, usually under a “failure to warn the consumer legal theory.” At this moment there is a case pending in the United States Supreme Court that may turn the law of the State’s upside down. This is not good.

A consumer only needs to consider the number of times that there have been recalls of dangerous lettuce, tomatoes, or other vegetable products to understand that States must be allowed to protect their citizens. Recently, federal preemption was raised in the instance of canned tuna that contained dangerous levels of mercury. Fortunately, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the argument that federal law preempts personal injury failure to warn claims related to mercury poisoning.

Consumers should be alert to the dangers that consumer products can cause. It is wise to regularly check the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s website and/or some other consumer safety website. These days dangerous products seem to be released and placed in stores weekly.

By now we’ve all seen the undercover news show in which police officers go into chat rooms and pretend to be teenage girls. Adult men then chat with the “teens” and set up a meeting. One of these predators even showed up on his “date” with a t-shirt which read “World’s Greatest Dad”! How do we protect our children from such predators? Here are some tips to share with your children:

1. Never give out personal information (such as name, age, address, phone number, school, town, password, schedule) or fill out questionnaires or any forms online. 
2. Never meet in person with anyone you have met online. 
3. Do not enter chat rooms. 
4. Do not tell anyone online where you will be or what you will be doing without Mom and/or Dad’s permission. 
5. Never respond to or send e-mail to new people you meet online. Talk to your parents first so that they can check it out. 
6. Be careful not to go into a new online area that is going to cost additional money without first getting Mom and/or Dad’s permission. 
7. Never send, without Mom and/or Dad’s permission, a picture over the Internet or via regular mail to anyone you’ve met on the Internet. 
8. Don’t buy or order products online or give out any credit card information online without Mom and/or Dad’s permission. 
9. Never respond to any email or chat conversation that makes you feel uncomfortable. End such an experience by logging off and telling Mom and/or Dad as soon as possible. 
10. Always tell Mom and/or Dad about something you saw, intentionally or unintentionally, that is upsetting. 

The World Wide Web has dramatically changed our world. Information is now at the touch of a button. Online sexual predators are too. Here are a few warnings signs that your child may have a problem with pornography on the Internet. 

• Your child is hiding disks. 
• Your child spends an inordinate amount of time on the Internet or is online late into the night. 
• Your child uses computer files that end in .gif or .jpg. These are picture files that may contain the latest Hubble telescope photos or pornographic material. 
• You discover unusual charges on your credit card statements. Be especially suspicious of phone charges that identify themselves as “Web Site.” Many pornographers don’t provide their names to avoid raising parental concern. 
• Your child quickly changes the computer screen when you enter the room. 
• You notice changes in your child’s behavior (mention of adults you don’t know, secretiveness, inappropriate sexual knowledge, sleeping problems, etc.). 

Be an active parent and if you see if of the above warning signs, talk with your child!

DUI vehicle accidents most often lead to the serious injury or death of innocent victims. Shockingly, a third of the time those responsible for a DUI crash are repeat DUI offenders. In addition to representing injury and wrongful death clients in car and motorcycle accidents Coxwell & Associates also has a specialized focus in DUI accident lawsuits in Mississippi.

DUI Laws in Mississippi

DUI laws in Mississippi dictate that anyone operating a vehicle with a minimum blood alcohol level of .08 percent or while under the influence of a narcotic is “driving under the influence” (DUI). In these cases, the intoxicated driver is always liable for any damages; however, individuals may share negligence, such as those who supplied the driver with alcohol.

Civil Legal Action

In addition to the criminal charges that the liable party will face for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the victim or victim’s family (in the case of wrongful death) can choose to file a civil lawsuit against the defendant to recover financial compensation for the consequences of his or her careless action.

If you or a loved one has been the victim of a DUI accident, especially if it caused an injury, you need a lawyer. File a DUI accident lawsuit with the help of Coxwell & Associates. We can help you, and your family, get the restitution to which you are entitled.

Many of us make enormous sacrifices for the care and protection of our children. It is extremely difficult to leave our children in the care of non-family members when we are occupied; however, outside child care is a necessity for thousands of parents in Mississippi and millions throughout the nation. Given that it is a necessity for so many, though, means that child care providers must provide certain standards of care and supervision when entrusted with such an important responsibility.

Lack of Supervision

If children are not properly monitored while being taken care of, they can sustain a variety of injuries playing unsafe games, playing in hazardous areas such as the street, or during dangerous horse play with other kids. In any of these cases, it is the child care provider’s responsibility to ensure that the child is safe and unharmed while in his or her care.

Do I Have a Child Neglect or Child Abuse Lawsuit?

In recent years, a disturbing trend of child neglect and abuse while in day care or with the babysitter has led many families to file lawsuits against their child care providers for injuries. If your child has been physically harmed in child care, or sustained emotional injury, Coxwell & Associates can help you and your family achieve peace of mind and financial compensation for any resulting injuries or damages.

How to determine liability when the state does not have a dog bite statute …

If a state does not have a dog bite statute, that state is a “one-bite” state, like Mississippi. In one-bite states, legal responsibility is determined by the following principles: 

• The first issue is whether the dog previously bit anyone. If so, then the dog owner / custodian is strictly responsible. 
• If the answer is no, the second issue is whether the dog previously did something that should have put the owner / custodian on notice that the dog was inclined to bite somebody in the future.  
• If that answer is no, we consider whether the person having custody of the dog at the time of the incident had violated any law pertaining to public health or safety, which was intended to protect people like the victim. An example would be a leash law, but there could be regulations such as those that restrict dogs from being in day care centers are beauty parlors. The violation of such a law would be considered “negligence per se.” In some states, the violation is not negligence per se but rather an alternate way of proving liability under the dog bite statute. 
• If we cannot find negligence per se, we consider whether the accident was caused by negligence. For example, a dog that is habitually mistreated, or sick, or suffering from a painful disease is more likely to bite a person, even if the dog has never done so before. Negligence is a ground for liability in most but not all of the one bite states. Sometimes it is referred to as “premises liability” when the incident happens on the dog owner’s or custodian’s land. 
• If the dog owner or custodian is not legally responsible, then we consider whether anyone else might be liable as a result of their negligence or knowledge of the dangerous propensity of the dog to bite people. 

When the dog owner does not have insurance or resources …

If the dog owner is unable to compensate the victim because of lack of insurance or resources, attorneys consider whether anyone else might be responsible because of their own negligence. An example would be a landlord who knows that a dangerous dog is living with a renter, but fails to do anything to control the dog or its owner.

Do I Have a Dog Bite Lawsuit?

If you or a loved one has been bitten by a dog, please call Coxwell & Associates and have a free consultation with one of our lawyers. 

Cell phones are perfect for emergencies and for staying in touch whenever and wherever we need to be in touch. But there is growing evidence that phones and driving don’t mix. With roads more crowded than ever and drivers seemingly more aggressive by the day, any distraction can lead to an accident, and cell phones definitely are a distraction.

A recent car accident caused by a driver distracted by a cell phone resulted in a $5.2 million settlement for the plaintiff. Debra was driving on an interstate highway when she was rear-ended by a sedan driven by an employee of International Paper Company. As a result of the collision, Debra had to have one of her arm’s amputated. Testimony showed that the driver who caused the crash was speeding and using her phone. In addition, the driver ignored her company’s cell-phone policy, which requires the use of hands-free headsets while driving.

A few common-sense safety rules can help us avoid accidents and save lives.

• If traffic is heavy, turn off your phone.

• Pull off the road before phoning.

• Use a hands-free type of phone.

• Save stressful, intense calls for home or office.

• If you must phone while driving, do so only when you can easily respond to traffic conditions.

The best advice about phoning and driving probably is the simplest: USE YOUR HEAD before you use your phone. If you or your loved ones have been injured by someone using a cell phone while driving, call the attorneys at Coxwell & Associates. 

Each year in the United States more than 1,000 children die in swimming-related accidents, with approximately 33% of these deaths occurring in swimming pools. In the U. S. in 2000 over 3,400 people lost their lives in drowning accidents; this does not include people who drowned in boating accidents. These tragic fatalities are very painful for the families, and should not happen.

Near drownings can leave the victim with serious problems, including brain damage. A large amount of water, such as a pool, is not required to pose a drowning threat. Many drownings occur in locations with as little as 2 inches of water, such as:

• A bucket with water 
• A sink 
• A bath tub 
• A toilet 
• A puddle 

A drowning or swimming-related accident is considered a premises liability lawsuit. The owner and operator of a swimming pool is responsible for any injuries sustained while on his or her property. Swimming accidents may occur because the owner was negligent and provided an unsafe environment. For example, children and adults should always have proper supervision while swimming, a fence with a working lock should surround the pool, and no one should ever swim while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

If you or a loved one has been involved in a swimming pool or drowning accident in Mississippi, please contact a Swimming Pool Accident attorney at Coxwell & Associates.

Antipsychotic drugs like Seroquel (quetiapine fumarate) have been found to cause very harmful side effects, such as diabetes.  In certain cases, these side effects have resulted in death.

Seroquel is marketed by AstraZeneca as a treatment for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, anxiety and sleep disorders. Seroquel is part of a family of drugs typically known as atypical antipsychotics. 

A study that was released in August 2003 found three commonly prescribed schizophrenia drugs, including Seroquel, increase the risk of diabetes compared to older antipsychotic drugs. While the number of Seroquel patients found to be suffering from the adverse effect was lesser than other drugs, it was believed that it might have been because of the smaller number of subjects that took Seroquel. A growing number of reports have been finding a link between some atypical antipsychotic drugs and Type 2 diabetes. 

The study was based on medical records gathered from 19,978 U.S. military veterans and resulted in Seroquel class action lawsuits to be filed. The Seroquel class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Seroquel patients put at risk for suffering a high rate of diabetes without being adequately warned. According to the Seroquel class action lawsuit, the company was aware of the risk for diabetes and even had detailed warnings about it on Japanese Seroquel labels. 

In addition, the Seroquel class action lawsuit alleged the drug company aggressively marketed the drug despite realizing the risks it posed and for indications not FDA approved. Drug companies have been criticized for having too much power and influence over the FDA and for being motivated by financial rewards that overshadow safety.

It is not completely understood how a drug like Seroquel works, but what is understood is that it can cause you or your loved ones harm because of its hazardous side effects.

Do I have a Seroquel Diabetes Lawsuit?

If you have taken Seroquel to treat schizophrenia, anxiety, bipolar disorder, or sleep disorders and you have since developed diabetes, the lawyers at Coxwell & Associates may be able to file a Seroquel lawsuit on your behalf and give you the legal protection you need. 

Coxwell & Associate’s experienced team of dangerous drug attorneys know how to combat profit-driven pharmaceuticals and will fight to get you compensation for your pain, suffering, and medical expenses.

If Seroquel’s side effects have caused you to suffer from diabetes, contact us today to discuss your possible Seroquel lawsuit.