–Injury Lawyers – Page 6

In Arizona, many employees are covered by workers’ compensation coverage that pays out for wage loss and medical expenses in the event that an employee suffers an injury in the workplace or while otherwise performing their duties.

Workers’ compensation is an exchange that is often sensible for both parties.  Employers agree to provide no-fault coverage, which gives employees the right to obtain workers’ compensation benefits even if there was no negligence or wrongful conduct involved, while employees agree to give up their right to sue the employer (and thereby obtain damages through standard litigation).

Many employees understand the basics of workers’ compensation, but aren’t quite sure what to make of “borderline” situations where they are also entitled to sue a third-party that is liable for their injuries.

Suppose, for example, that you are injured in a car accident while using the company vehicle to deliver products to a warehouse.  Though the accident was not the fault of your employer, you would be entitled to submit a claim for workers’ compensation to obtain benefits that account for your wage loss and medical expenses.

Now, even though you are not entitled to sue your employer, you might be entitled to sue a third-party — perhaps the negligent driver that collided with you — to secure a more extensive range of damages.

Oftentimes, injured employees are incentivized to bring an action against a liable third-party as workers’ compensation benefits can be quite limited — workers’ compensation benefits may only cover medical expenses and wage loss.  While significant, these may not be sufficient to account for all your damages.

By suing a third-party, you gain access to a much broader range of damages: pain and suffering, emotional distress, property loss, and more.

Application of the Collateral Source Rule

In Arizona, the collateral source rule ensures that you can not only secure workers’ compensation benefits, but also make a claim for wage loss and medical expenses (along with other damages) against the liable third-party.

What is the collateral source rule, exactly?

It’s actually quite simple.  Basically, the rule prevents the introduction of evidence relating to bills paid by a “collateral source,” such as workers’ compensation, or a health insurer.  For example, if you had all your medical expenses paid off by workers’ compensation insurance, you could still claim those medical expenses as damages in your lawsuit against the liable third-party defendant.  The defendant could not introduce evidence of your workers’ compensation benefits, and would therefore be required to pay your medical expenses (even though you already paid them off thanks to workers’ compensation).

Stated succinctly: the collateral source rule allows you, in certain limited circumstances, to obtain a financial windfall in the form of a “double recovery.”

Speak to an Experienced Phoenix Injury Lawyer for a Free and Confidential Consultation

The attorneys here at Hirsch & Lyon have over 65 years of combined experience representing the injured in a range of motor vehicle accident lawsuits (car, truck, motorcycle, and pedestrian disputes), including those that involve related workers’ compensation claims.

We are both client-oriented and results-focused.  Over the years, we have secured hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured clients, working tirelessly to secure favorable verdicts and settlements.  We are thorough about preparing for the possibility of trial, and as such, we have a competitive advantage during negotiations.

Call 602-535-1900 today to get connected to an experienced Phoenix injury lawyer for a free consultation.

Filing an accident claim can be a simple process when there are only two parties involved and the negligent driver is clearly identified. Insurance companies know they will be required to pay benefits to the injured victim when their client is fully at fault. However, when the injured victim also has a certain degree of comparative negligence, insurance company claims adjusters can be difficult in negotiations because they can use comparative fault to lessen the total payout of the claim. This is not a scientific calculation, but insurance companies try to control this component of an accident from the very start. And, this is especially true when the accident involves commercial vehicles and a shipping company. Multiple car accidents can be complicated as well when all parties have attorneys arguing competing versions of events that are focused on protecting the fault level of their client. Regardless of the situation, it is always important to get legal advice from a car accident lawyer before filing a claim and seriously consider retaining a Pacific Attorney Group to handle your particular case because of potential complications.

Investigating the Accident

One of the first steps an accident attorney will take is conducting a full investigation into the crash. This usually begins by evaluating the official accident report along with interviewing the reconstruction specialist and investigating police officer. A car accident lawyer can contest the official version of events as well as the version of events provided by the respondents and their insurance companies when details are missed in the evaluation. Your personal injury lawyer can also conduct a background check on the respondent parties with respect to driving history along with inspecting the vehicles involved in the wreck. This can be very important when commercial vehicles such as 18-wheelers were included because the potential for equipment failure is high in a big-rig crash.

Identifying Multiple Negligent Parties

In certain situations such as when commercial vehicles are part of the collision, it is possible that the employing company can be liable as well as the driver. When vehicles are owned by the operator and leased by the company, both parties could be liable and will have their own insurance company adjusters attempting to lessen the value of the claim. This is important because commercial vehicles are usually insured in higher amounts, which means there are more financial funds available when multiple policies can be attached. In addition, shipping companies often instruct drivers to cut corners during operation in terms of rig inspection or driving time restrictions. Sub-standard company policy along with citation history can be important in being made financially whole in the settlement process.

When a Case Goes to Trial

Any party to an accident case can request that an injury claim go to a full trial. This usually happens when a defending legal counsel thinks they can win an acquittal, or at least a reduction in applicable damages, or when a personal injury lawyer for the plaintiff thinks they can win a punitive damage claim or be assigned whole financial damages regarding the long-term prognosis of the accident injury. Bad faith insurance companies are often difficult in negotiations for full damage payment, and punitive damages can greatly enhance the value of an accident injury claim. In addition, product liability claims can also arise when unexplained accidents occur due to mechanical failure of auto components.

Never let an insurance company deny you full compensation for an injury following an accident. Always retain a car accident lawyer who understands what to expect from the defendants and can inspect the official record for mistakes while investigating all of the circumstances. Your accident injury claim may be much more valuable than your realize.

Intersections tend to be hotspots for motor vehicle and pedestrian accidents, in Arizona and throughout the country at-large.  According to a 2008 study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were roughly 2.31 million crashes that occurred at intersections in that year alone.

If you suffer injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurs at an intersection, and the intersection was designed in a way that contributed to the accident, then you are entitled under Arizona law to sue the person or entity that owns or possesses the intersection property.

Whether an intersection represents a hazard depends on a number of factors, but ultimately rests on a determination that the intersection presents an unreasonable risk of danger to users of the intersection.  There are a number of different factors to consider, of course.  Let’s take a look at a few.

Obstructed Visibility

Oftentimes, intersection accidents occur due to problems with visibility — whether caused by inadequate lighting, narrow or otherwise constrained sight lines leading up to the main intersection, and various physical obstructions such as poorly placed signage, trees, and other items.  When designing and maintaining an intersection, those responsible must consider the ability of drivers and pedestrians to identify the presence of the intersection (and others near the intersection) in advance, thus giving them the time necessary to make adjustments.

Non-Functioning Traffic Signals

Intersections must be properly maintained to ensure that the traffic signals are in good working order.  In some cases, for example, an errant traffic signal may give a pedestrian confidence to enter the intersection and cross the road, thus luring them into a dangerous situation.  If the signal doesn’t work, then the pedestrian could be hit by an incoming vehicle.

Inadequate Traffic Signals

The traffic entering certain intersections can be high-volume, complex, and chaotic.  Intersection design must take this into account — if additional, visible, easier-to-read traffic signals are necessary to properly control traffic, then it must be implemented to ensure that the intersection does not pose an unreasonable risk of danger.

Lack of Speed Control Mechanisms

Speed control mechanisms (i.e., radar signs, speed bumps, etc.) are an effective way to slow down incoming traffic.  Unfortunately, administrative bloat and lack of care can lead to inadequate speed control implementations.  With the aid of a skilled attorney, you can investigate the roadway and determine whether traffic speed would benefit from such mechanisms, and whether the implementation thereof might have prevented your injuries.

Design Inconsiderate of the Circumstances

Intersection design must be reactive to the circumstances.  For example, if there is an elementary school down the street from the intersection, it’s important that the intersection be highly visible to both drivers and pedestrians — further, the traffic signals must be implemented to give schoolchildren sufficient time to cross the street safely.  If the traffic signal is too “fast” to countdown, then this might encourage unsafe behavior when crossing the road.

Contact a Skilled Phoenix Accident Lawyer for Help

Poor intersection design poses a serious risk of injury to drivers and pedestrians alike, and litigation may be worth pursuing — not only to ensure maximum compensation for your injuries, but also to force the defendant to correct the design of the intersection and prevent others from suffering similar harms.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, we have decades of experience assisting injured plaintiffs with a range of motor vehicle accident claims, including those that involve road hazards and dangerous conditions of property at intersections (public and private).  We pride ourselves on being a firm that values clients and their time.  We make ourselves readily available to answer any questions or concerns that clients may have, and further, we offer discounted contingency fees so that our injured clients can keep more of what they ultimately secure in a verdict or settlement.

Call (602) 535-1900 or send us information about your claim online to schedule a free and confidential consultation with an experienced Phoenix accident lawyer.  We look forward to assisting you.

In Arizona (and throughout the country), even once you have secured a court judgment in your favor, the task is not yet complete — you must still collect the damages which you are owed by the defendant.  The type of case is irrelevant to collection.  Whether you were involved in a car accident lawsuit, or some other lawsuit, will have no effect on the procedure that you are required to follow.

Unfortunately, defendants can be challenging.  Though in most cases the defendant will honor their responsibilities and — having lost the case — will pay the damages that you (the plaintiff) are owed, in some cases, the defendant will maneuver around the judgment and create roadblocks to collection.

The defendant may ignore your request for damages, costs, and legal fees.  Alternatively, they may outright refuse to pay the judgment.  As a general rule, these are a clever application of stalling tactics.  If the defendant can stall for a long enough period of time, then they may be able to hide or otherwise relocate their assets so that you — as the judgment creditor — cannot seize them.

What can you do to ensure that you collect your damages in full, after a judgment has been entered in your favor?

Let’s take a look at some of your options.

What is a Court Judgment?

A court judgment is essentially a formal document that gives you, the successful plaintiff, the unrestricted right to seize the assets of the defendant in order to satisfy the damages owed to you.  In Arizona, court judgments last for a long period of time — five years, running from the date that the judgment was entered) — to account for the difficulty in seizing assets that the defendant may attempt to hide or relocate.  The judgment may also be renewed, if deemed necessary, by filing an affidavit of renewal with the court.

If the defendant makes collection difficult, and extends the collection process significantly, the judgment amount will accrue interest year-on-year.

There are many advantages to the judgment being made enforceable over a quite extended period, and two stand out as particularly useful for the typical plaintiff.  These advantages are as follows:

• Assets may be seized when the defendant least expects it, years after they have “let their guard down,” so to speak, and
• You can wait until the defendant obtains sufficient assets to pay off the judgment before collecting.

Suppose, for example, that you have been awarded $250,000 in damages in a motor vehicle accident lawsuit.  At the time of the lawsuit, however, the defendant has not been doing very well financially.  They are unemployed and have few savings.  They do not have sufficient assets to satisfy the judgment.  If you were to attempt to collect, you would only be able to collect $30,000.

Now, imagine that you wait four or five years, and the defendant has secured a high-paying job and has invested well over the years.  Their total assets are $300,000.  If you attempt to collect, you can fully satisfy the amount owed on your original judgment.  Even better: the defendant will owe you more due to the accrual of interest!

Seizing the Necessary Assets

When attempting to seize the assets of the defendant (in order to satisfy the judgment), perhaps the first issue you’ll run into is the defendant hiding or relocating their assets.  For example, a defendant may — after losing a case and having a judgment entered against them — move significant assets “offshore,” into foreign accounts.

As the winning plaintiff (and thus, the judgment creditor), you are legally entitled to collect, but you cannot do so if you don’t know where the assets are!  Third-party investigation may work, to an extent, but even better is filing for a Judgment Debtor’s Examination with the court.  The Judgment Debtor’s Examination will compel the defendant to appear in court and answer truthfully as to the location of their various assets.  The defendant will also be ordered not to relocate the assets further, and you will be granted a Writ of Execution by the court to seize said assets.

If the defendant has not attempted to hide or relocate assets, or if you know exactly where those assets are already, you may simply file a Writ of Execution (for personal property and other assets) or a Judgment Lien (for real estate property).  This gives the county Sheriff — where the assets are located — the go-ahead to seize the assets on your behalf.

Arizona Limitations on Seizure

It’s worth noting that you cannot seize all assets.  Some are “off limits,” so to speak.  If the defendant does not have significant assets, and all they have left is their sole personal residence, you may have difficulty seizing the residence (and forcing a sale) — this is known as the homestead exemption.  In fact, there are many other exceptional situations that may prevent you from collecting your rightful judgment.  For this reason, it’s critical that you work with an experienced attorney who has a track record of success in securing the defendant’s assets on behalf of clients.

Contact a Skilled Phoenix Injury Lawyer Today for Assistance With Your Claims

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys not only have decades of experience representing injured plaintiffs in motor vehicle accident litigation, but also have extensive experience handling the collection of monetary judgments — we are therefore well-positioned to identify and secure assets necessary to fulfill the judgment.

Call 602-535-1900 today to schedule a free consultation with a skilled Phoenix injury lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.

Our Phoenix Accident Attorneys Explain the Duty to Mitigate

In Arizona, and throughout the country, injured plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for damages they incur due to the negligent, reckless, or intentional acts of others — whether they are injured in a car accident or a slip-and-fall accident, or some other accident scenario.  This right to recovery is not absolute, however.  Injured plaintiffs must act in accordance with their various duties and responsibilities under the law, which includes the duty to mitigate their losses.

What is the Duty to Mitigate?

Defendants cannot be held liable for losses that they do not actually cause.  This “causation” requirement is fundamentally linked to the duty to mitigate.

How so?

The duty to mitigate requires that the injured plaintiff exert “reasonable efforts” to reduce their total losses — failure to do so will result in a proportional decrease in one’s recoverable damages.  Losses can be quite varied, and as such, mitigation must cover all the losses that the plaintiff intends to claim.  This can all be somewhat confusing to understand, so let’s use a quick example to clarify.

Suppose that you are injured in a motor vehicle accident by the defendant, who was excessively speeding at the time, thus causing the accident.  You sustained significant neck and back injuries during the accident, and as a result, you can no longer work.  Now, suppose that you seek adequate medical diagnostics and treatment as soon as possible.  Your doctor asks that you sign up for long-term physical therapy sessions in order to regain some of your pre-accident function.

If you fail to attend the physical therapy sessions, then the defendant may have an excellent argument for your “failure to mitigate.”  After all, they could argue that your injuries were worsened by your refusal to attend the physical therapy sessions, that the injuries would have mostly resolved had you attended the sessions, and that you could have returned to your job soon thereafter (or found alternative employment).  The defendant could thereby convince the court to reduce your damages, as they did not actually “contribute” to a significant portion of the damages sustained over time.

Importantly, the duty to mitigate is not exclusively linked to medical expenses and pain and suffering damages.  If you are injured in an accident, and afterwards, you don’t seek employment, then you cannot claim the same amount of “lost wages” (as you did not seek to mitigate those damages).

Reasonable Efforts are Required

The duty to mitigate is premised on “reasonable effort.”  As the plaintiff, you are not expected to make perfect decisions — just reasonable ones, given the circumstances.  What constitutes reasonable effort depends largely on the circumstances.

For example, if you fail to seek out basic medical services after an accident, then that will almost certainly constitute a failure to exert reasonable effort towards mitigating your damages.  On the other hand, the defendant cannot hold you to ridiculous standards.  If you do not seek out a niche medical expert located in a foreign country, that would likely not be considered a violation of your duty to mitigate (as it would demand more than “reasonable effort”)

Make an Appointment With an Experienced Phoenix Accident Lawyer Today

If you have been injured in an accident due to the negligence or wrongful conduct of another individual (or entity), then you may have the right to sue and recover damages for your various losses.  Still, despite the fact that you may be entitled to damages under Arizona law, it’s important to note that you have responsibilities as the injured plaintiff that — if you fail to uphold them — could undermine your claim.  Among these responsibilities is the duty to mitigate your damages.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have more than 65 years of combined experience representing injured plaintiffs throughout the state of Arizona.  We specialize in motor vehicle accident litigation (car, truck, and motorcycle cases), and due to our commitment to these specialized practice areas, we are uniquely well-positioned to successfully litigate such claims on behalf of our clients.

We do not get paid until you obtain a settlement or verdict in your favor.  Our contingency fees are discounted, however, ensuring that even when you win your case, you get to keep more of what you’ve fought so hard to obtain.

Call 602-535-1900 or submit an online claim form to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Phoenix accident attorney here at Hirsch & Lyon.

Waivers of liability are quite common, particularly in the context of recreational activities — this ubiquity means that laypeople are generally familiar with the concept of a “liability waiver” and what it entails.  Simply put, a liability waiver shields the defendant from civil liability for serious injuries and damages that they cause due to their own negligence.

Still, few laypeople understand that liability waivers are not always applicable to a given situation, or that enforceability will depend on a number of different factors that could be evaluated in their favor.

Freedom to Contract

Arizona law recognizes the freedom to contract, but this freedom is not unlimited.  Though two or more parties are reasonably entitled to contract around their potential liabilities, the law will not necessarily accept all such agreements as enforceable.  In Arizona, for example, the state generally disfavors agreements (i.e., liability waivers) designed to release liability.  As such, any and all liability waivers are strictly construed against the defendant seeking to enforce the waiver.

Determining Whether the Liability Waiver is Enforceable

Enforceability of a liability waiver depends on the circumstances.  Courts will analyze the facts of the case (surrounding the liability waiver) and will consider those facts in the context of the following factors.

Ambiguity in the Waiver Agreement

Liability waivers must be sufficiently clear and unambiguous such that they function as a fully adequate notice of the inherent dangers associated with the covered activity.  The dangers must be reasonably communicated to the participants.  If there is ambiguity in the liability waiver language, then this will weigh against a finding of enforceability.

Specificity of the Release from Liability

In Arizona, it has been long-established by the courts that enforceable liability waivers must specify the particular risks and harms for which liability is being released.  Though it is not necessary for the defendant to specify every single potential risk or harm, the language of the agreement must make it clear to the participant what the scope of the liability shield actually entails.

Public Policy Considerations

In some cases, public policy will count against a finding of enforceability.  For example, a product manufacturer — say, a tire manufacturer — cannot avoid liability through a waiver agreement.  Product manufacturers are held strictly liable for damages caused by their defective products.  As such, it would be against public policy for them to be able to avoid the application of this strict liability framework.

The “Intentional Conduct” Exception

In Arizona, and elsewhere, liability waivers cannot be used to shield the defendant from liability for their intentional misconduct.  Waivers may only release the defendant from liability for their negligent conduct.

How does this work, exactly?

Suppose that you are injured in a go-karting accident.  You are vacationing with your family when you decide to compete in a go-kart race with a recreational company.  When you pay for the rental, you sign a waiver of liability that exculpates the defendant from liability for damages incurred (due to their fault).  Once you start go-karting around the track, however, the owner takes a second go-kart and slams it intentionally into yours, causing you to suffer serious injuries.

Despite the fact that you signed a liability waiver, an Arizona court is unlikely to enforce it, as it is not relevant to the case — the defendant’s conduct (intentional) is not covered by the waiver.

Schedule a Free Consultation With an Experienced Phoenix Injury Lawyer Today

Unfortunately, many prospective plaintiffs do not realize that they have a legitimate claim for damages (even if they have already signed a liability waiver).  If you have been injured in some activity where you were required to sign a liability waiver, then you’ll want to consult with a qualified attorney as soon as possible.  Your attorney will evaluate the facts of the case and will help you develop a strategy for convincing the court not to enforce the waiver.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have several decades of experience serving injured plaintiffs throughout Arizona in a range of motor vehicle accident litigation.  Our services are designed to prioritize the needs of our clients — not only do we make ourselves available for questions 24/7, but we are willing to make hospital and home appointments (if need be) and provide discounted contingency fees.

Call 602-535-1900 to setup an appointment with an experienced Phoenix injury lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.  Initial consultation is free.  We look forward to helping you!

Motor vehicle accidents are often caused — in whole or in part — by the presence of unexpected road debris and various other roadway hazards.  In the state of Arizona, for example, the Department of Transportation estimates that road debris alone is responsible for 1,000 crashes on an annual basis.  Accidents from dangerous road conditions can be particularly disastrous, as drivers may not be prepared for

If you have been involved in an accident that was caused by road debris or some other roadway hazard, then you may be entitled to damages, as it the existence of the dangerous condition may be indicative of another’s negligence.  You’ll therefore want to get in touch with a Phoenix injury lawyer as soon as possible for an evaluation of your car accident claims and how best to proceed with litigation.

Though the existence of a roadway hazard may not always be the fault of another party, there are many cases in which the negligence of the defendant — typically the possessor of a particular roadway (i.e., the government, or some private entity) — has contributed to the hazard at-issue.  If the defendant fails to correct the hazard or fails to warn motorists of the existence of the hazard so that it can be avoided, then liability may attach under prevailing Arizona law.

Roadways Must Be Maintained in a Reasonably Safe Condition

Claims arising out of injuries sustained due to road debris (or other roadway hazards) generally come under the umbrella of premises liability.  Premises liability claims in Arizona are rather similar to those found in other jurisdictions throughout the country.  Stated simply, you will be entitled to recover damages if you can show that the defendant — the person or entity who is in control of a particular property, which may include a roadway — failed to maintain the roadway in a reasonably safe condition for motorists.

Once a hazard is known (or should be known to the defendant), then they have a responsibility to correct it.  The hazard can be corrected in two ways: 1) the defendant can repair the hazard or remove the debris at-issue, or 2) the defendant can put up signs warnings motorists about the impending hazard so that it can be avoided.

For example, suppose that there is a large pothole in one of the lanes of a busy public highway.  After the government discovers the hazard, they have a duty to correct it and minimize its danger.  Perhaps they do not have the immediate resources to fill in the pothole.  They must instead setup a perimeter around the pothole and create signs warning motorists about the presence of the hazard.

It’s worth noting that the defendant may attempt to avoid liability by arguing that they were not aware of the hazard at-issue, and that they were therefore not required to correct the hazard or warn motorists of its existence.  This is not necessarily a winning argument for the defendant, however, if they “should have known” about the hazard given the circumstances.  Generally speaking, those who are responsible for roadways have a duty to inspect those roadways for dangerous conditions that could expose motorists to an unreasonable risk of injury.  Failure to inspect and discover a condition does not shield the defendant from liability.

Hazards Must Be Non-Obvious or Unavoidable

In Arizona, defendants cannot be held liable for injuries caused by hazards that were obvious or avoidable — they can only be held liable for hazards that were concealed in some way such that reasonably prudent motorists would not have discovered the hazard before it was too late to avoid it.

For example, if you are driving and you notice (from a distance) that a fallen tree is covering half a lane on the roadway, you cannot slam into the tree and then obtain damages from the City for your injuries.  Unless the collision was fundamentally unavoidable, the fact that you became aware of the hazard well in advance means that you had a responsibility to exert reasonable efforts to avoid the hazard.

Contact an Experienced Phoenix Injury Lawyer for Assistance With Your Claims

If you have suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident involving road debris or some other hazard on the roadway, then you may have the right to sue and recover damages pursuant to Arizona premises liability law.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our personal injury attorneys have decades of experience litigating claims on behalf of the injured, including motorists who encountered unexpected road hazards.  We are committed to client-oriented legal representation — we make ourselves available to clients 24/7, offer discounted contingency fees, and encourage a level of transparency in the attorney-client relationship that many other firms fail to achieve.  This approach is advantageous for everyone involved.  You can have any questions or concerns addressed quickly, and we can better understand your litigation goals.

Call 602-535-1900 to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Phoenix injury lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.

Whether you’ve been injured in a car accident in Phoenix, a slip-and-fall accident, or in any other scenario where the defendant’s negligent or wrongful acts have contributed to your injuries, plaintiffs are entitled to claim (as a separate element) damages for “loss of enjoyment of life” (LEL), otherwise known as “hedonic damages.”  These damages account for a unique set of losses arising from an injury — specifically, the plaintiff must assign a monetary value to their recreational activities, and thus calculate the losses due to the injuries at-issue.

LEL damages have not always been accepted, and in some jurisdictions, there remain questions as to their viability as a separate element of damages.  In fact, Arizona courts have only recently deemed LEL damages independent of pain and suffering damages.  This case law development has led to a spike in litigation involving significant LEL damage claims.

Confused by all this complicated legal terminology?  Let’s break down some of the basics and take a brief look at how LEL damages actually work, and how they might be applicable to your case.

Basics of LEL Damages

LEL damages (i.e., hedonic damages) are intended to compensate the injured plaintiff for various losses related to their recreational activities, social life, and relationships.  They are a form of non-economic damages, and as such, are inherently subjective, which is to say that they are based on your personal, emotionally-tinted experience of loss, as opposed to some objective indication of loss.

Suppose that you are severely injured in a car accident, which results in an extensive, full-body paralysis.  You have become quadriplegic as a consequence of the defendant’s negligent acts.  Under Arizona law, you would not only be entitled to damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, wage loss, and loss of future earning capacity, but you would also be entitled to recover damages for the “lost enjoyment of life” that extends naturally from your paralyzing condition.

After becoming quadriplegic, for example, perhaps your once-happy marriage falters and it devolves enough that a divorce is necessary.  Further, you may have been an active, sporty person prior to the accident.  Your quadriplegia may prevent you from any serious physical recreation, such as sport.

The Difficulty of Calculating LEL Damages

In the LEL damages context, the claim itself is not necessarily at issue — it is the amount of claimed damages that are typically up for dispute.  Remember, LEL damages are inherently subjective.  Though expert testimony regarding the extent of your injuries (and whether you are capable of engaging in the recreational or social activities at-issue) is certainly valuable, it is up to your attorney to put forth a convincing argument for the claimed damages.

Despite the subjective nature of LEL damages, they must still be reasonably related to the losses.  For example, suppose that your injury renders you unable to play basketball.  If you played only occasionally, however, then the damages cannot be unreasonably high (i.e., $50,000+).  On the other hand, if you were a former collegiate basketball athlete and if you regularly exercised and socialized by playing basketball, perhaps on a weekly basis, then significant damages are justifiable.

LEL damages must also take into account various factors that include the length of the supposed loss (temporary or permanent), the age of the injured plaintiff, the importance of the activity to the plaintiff, and more.

Schedule a Free Consultation With an Experienced Phoenix Injury Lawyer for Further Guidance

If you’ve suffered injuries due to the negligence, recklessness, or intentional acts of another person or entity, then Arizona law may give you the right to sue and recover a range of damages, including those for “loss of enjoyment of life.”  As a general rule, LEL damages tend to be somewhat more difficult to prove, and defendants are very likely to dispute the amount of damages claimed.  You’ll therefore benefit greatly from working with a qualified attorney who has extensive experience handling personal injury litigation that involves claims for LEL damages.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have served thousands of injured plaintiffs over the years, assisting them throughout the litigation process.  We believe that effective legal representation is personalized to the needs of each client — to that end, we keep our clients fully apprised of the developments in their case, and are committed to prioritizing their goals.  We are extremely confident in our ability to effectively represent the needs of our clients, and as such, we offer discounted contingency fees.

Call (602) 535-1900 to speak with an experienced Phoenix personal injury lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.  Your initial consultation is free, and all communication is confidential.  We look forward to advising you on how best to move forward with your injury claims.

If you’ve been injured in a motor vehicle accident (due to the negligent or wrongful acts of another), then you may be somewhat confused as to how your health insurance coverage affects your ability to recover damages for incurred medical expenses.

After all, it might seem reasonable to the injured plaintiff that they be entitled to recover damages only for losses incurred out-of-pocket.  If your health insurer is paying for all your medical expenses, can you assert such damages in litigation against the defendant?

Thanks to the collateral source rule: yes.  Arizona law gives injured plaintiffs the right to recover for medical expenses, even if their insurer is covering such expenses.

The Collateral Source Rule

In Arizona, as in many other states, the “collateral source rule” applies to a range of personal injury actions.  The rule essentially prevents the jury from being able to consider evidence relating to plaintiff’s receipt of funds from outside sources, such as insurance, so that the defendant cannot escape significant liability simply because the plaintiff had the good sense and foresight to purchase insurance coverage.

In practical terms, the application of the collateral source rule means that you — the injured plaintiff — are entitled to recover damages for any and all legitimate medical expenses, even if those expenses are being covered by your insurer.  Simply put: your health insurance coverage will not negatively affect your ability to secure damages in a personal injury lawsuit.  Claim reimbursement is irrelevant.

Recovering Damages for the Amount Paid

It’s worth noting that the push-and-pull between healthcare providers and insurers often leads to significant pricing negotiation.  In Arizona, injured plaintiffs are entitled to assert (and recover) damages for the actual amount paid by their insurer.

How does this work?

Suppose that you are treated at a rehabilitation clinic.  The clinic charges $100,000 in total for months of treatment.  This treatment is covered by your health insurer.  As such, your insurer negotiates with the clinic and gets the price reduced to $50,000.  When bringing a claim for medical expenses, you will therefore have to claim the amount that was ultimately paid by your insurer: $50,000.

Contact an Experienced Phoenix Accident Attorney for Further Assistance With Your Claims

If you have suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident that was caused due to the contributed fault of another person or entity, then you may be entitled to recover damages pursuant to Arizona law.  Litigation is not always as straightforward as it initially appears, however — when making a claim for medical expenses, for example, one must take into account the amount actually paid by the insurer.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have over six decades of combined experience representing injured plaintiffs in motor vehicle accident litigation, including car, truck, and motorcycle accidents.  Unlike other firms, we are specialized in aggressively litigating motor vehicle accident cases to their fullest extent, giving us a substantial competitive advantage in securing compensation on behalf of our clients.

Call 602-535-1900 today to schedule a free and confidential consultation with an experienced Phoenix accident attorney here at Hirsch & Lyon.  During your initial consultation, we will evaluate your injury claims and help you strategize your next move.

In the state of Arizona, loss-of-life claims — more specifically, wrongful death claims and survival claims — are a category of injury claims brought either by the surviving family members, or by the estate of the deceased individual.  When a person is killed due to the negligent or otherwise wrongful acts of another, then Arizona law may entitle a qualified subset of survivors to pursue an action in litigation against the defendant and recover damages.

When most laypeople think of loss-of-life claims, they tend to think of “wrongful death.”  Survival actions are an important part of the legal landscape, however, and may lead to significant damage recovery.

So, what’s the difference?  Let’s take a look.

Survival Actions vs. Wrongful Death Actions

Survival actions are fundamentally different than wrongful death actions, though these differences are often misunderstood.

Stated simply, survival actions are brought against the defendant (who is responsible for causing the death at-issue) on behalf of the deceased individual.  In essence, a survival action gives the estate of the deceased an opportunity to recover damages for the wrongs committed against the deceased individual.  It arguably acts as a form of claim preservation — whatever claims the deceased would have had in the event they survived, are preserved and may be pursued by their estate.

Suppose, for example, that your loved one is killed in a motor vehicle accident by a distracted driver.  Their death was not immediate, however.  After a week of attempted treatment, your loved one finally succumbed to their injuries.  Their estate (managed by their personal representative) would thereafter be entitled to sue the defendant-driver and recover damages for the personal losses suffered by your loved one.

Wrongful death actions are also brought against the defendant (who is responsible for causing the death at-issue), but not on behalf of the deceased individual — instead, it is the surviving family members who bring a wrongful death action.  In essence, a wrongful death action gives those surviving family members a right to recover damages for the losses they suffered as a result of their loved one’s death.  Wrongful death claims have nothing to do with the particular losses suffered by the deceased.

Let’s return to the previous example.  Suppose that your loved one is killed in a motor vehicle accident by a distracted driver, but the death is immediate.  As one of the qualified surviving family members, you would be entitled to bring a wrongful death action against the defendant-driver to recover damages for “your” losses, which may include pain and suffering, emotional distress, medical expenses (paid out of your pocket), and more.

It’s worth noting that survival actions and wrongful death actions are not mutually exclusive.  It is entirely possible for the death of a loved one to give rise to both types of actions.

Filing a Claim

Survival actions must be brought by the estate of the deceased (which is likely administered by the personal representative of the deceased).  Though surviving family members are not necessarily entitled to bring the action — unless one of them is serving as the personal representative, of course — they are most likely the ones who will benefit from the eventual damage recovery.

For example, if the estate brings a survival action against a defendant and secures $100,000 in damages, then those funds will eventually be distributed to the beneficiaries of the estate.  If you and your sibling are the two sole (and equal) beneficiaries, then each of you will receive $50,000 more than originally anticipated.

Damages in a Survival Action

In Arizona survival actions, the law allows for the recovery of damages for lost wages, funeral expenses, burial expenses, and medical expenses (paid by the deceased).  Depending on the circumstances, punitive damages may also be available.

Unfortunately, however, there are strict limitations on “pain and suffering” recovery — section 14-3110 of the Arizona Revised Statutes specifically restrict recovery of pain and suffering damages in a survival action.

Schedule a Free Consultation With a Skilled Phoenix Wrongful Death Attorney

Loss-of-life claims can be particularly confusing for those who have little (or no) experience with injury lawsuits.  Depending on the type of action — wrongful death or survival — litigation will proceed quite differently.  Given the relative complexity of such litigation, it’s important that you get in touch with an experienced attorney who has a proven track record of success in handling wrongful death and survival actions.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, we bring decades of combined experience in loss-of-life litigation to bear in representing those affected by the wrongful death at-issue.  We are committed to the provision of client-oriented legal advocacy.  Not only are we paid on contingency (e.g. we are only paid if you succeed in recovering damages), but we accept a reduced fee in comparison to competitor firms.  We also keep our clients “in the know” with regard to developments in the case, and work with them to ensure that our strategic goals are aligned.

Call (602) 535-1900 to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Phoenix wrongful death attorney here at Hirsch & Lyon.  We look forward to assisting you.