New accident claims article based on personal injury law in Canada.
When a victim is injured in a car accident, they are entitled to damages for pain and suffering, otherwise known as general damages. General damages are intended to compensate victims for losses that are not pecuniary, such as income loss or medical treatment costs. Pursuant to section 267.5 of the Insurance Act, general damage awards are subject to a statutory deductible, which is currently $39,556.53 and, since the legislation was amended in 2015, is indexed with inflation every year. Unfortunately, general damages awards are not rising with the deductible, resulting in increasingly lower general damages awards for plaintiffs.
The trend towards lower general damages was
demonstrated in A.B. v White. The plaintiff sustained soft-tissue injuries and
returned to work while dealing with chronic pain. Her physicians described her
pain as “severe and debilitating”. Nonetheless, the jury awarded the plaintiff
$42,250 for general damages. After the deductible was applied, the plaintiff
received only $4,266.67.
In applying the deductible, Justice MacLeod
noted that it was a “disastrous outcome” for the plaintiff and that the
legislation worked against plaintiffs with moderate and smaller claims. Justice
MacLeod stated:
[The deductible] illustrates the
legislative intention that all but the most significant tort claims should be
eliminated, and injured motorists be largely confined to claiming no fault
benefits under their own insurance policies.
It also illustrates how annual indexing of
the monetary threshold for unreduced general damages and annual indexing of the
deductible may in short order make unreduced general damages largely
unattainable. A review of jury awards in this jurisdiction over the past decade
would reveal that general damages in excess of $131,854.01 are very much the
exception. There is no evidence that jury verdicts have become more generous to
keep pace with inflation.
Plaintiffs should be aware that due to the
Insurance Act, their claims for pain and suffering will be subject to a
deductible which grows every year.
Bogoroch
& Associates LLP are committed to helping victims through these
difficult times by providing effective, efficient, and compassionate legal
representation. If you or a loved one has been injured in a car accident,
please contact our personal injury lawyers today. Consultations
are free and we would be honoured to help you.
The COVID-19 pandemic has
disproportionately impacted residents in long-term care homes. In Ontario
(Canada), a total of 2,564 people has died from the novel
coronavirus, 1,799 of which are residents in long-term care homes. It
is no surprise that older age, complex chronic health conditions and underlying
health problems are prevalent amongst residents in long-term care facilities
thereby rendering them the most vulnerable demographic to the novel
coronavirus. However, these factors alone do not explain the disproportional
impact.
Instead, COVID-19 has brought to light longstanding concerns regarding the regulation and the enforcement of policies, procedures, and guidelines at long term care homes, because of this, there is more and more covid-19 testing being done to keep these senior citizens safe from infection as well as buying supplies like disposable masks. Inadequate compliance with the statutory regime that regulates long term care homes, more specifically, the Long-Term Care Homes Act (“LTCHA”), S.O. 2007, c. 8 and Ontario Regulation 79/10, was certainly of concern prior to the rampant COVID-19 outbreaks.
A failure to comply with the LTCHA and
Regulation may amount to negligence and a breach of the Occupiers’
Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2. Incidents giving rise to potential
negligence
against long terms care homes and staff include, but are not limited to,
inadequate supervision, monitoring and surveillance resulting in falls;
inadequate administration of nutrition and hydration protocols; abuse; and
resident-on-resident violence and/or aggression.
There is a real risk that the novel
coronavirus will only exacerbate the prevalence of incidents arising from
negligence given the existing faltered system. The protection of residents in
long terms care homes by stopping the spread of COVID-19 is paramount; however,
the discourse must also shift to the prevention of incidents arising from
negligence by ensuring compliance with the regulatory regime.
Recent Emergency Orders implemented by the
government of Ontario may only provide an illusion of protection and adequate
care and defence amid the outbreak of COVID-19. The following provisions of the
Emergency Orders are highly problematic and perhaps detrimental to ensuring a
safe and secure environment as mandated under section 5 of the LTCHA:
Long-term care home licensees
are not required to ensure that the minimum number of staffing
hours set out in the Long-Term Care Homes Act and associated
regulation are met for a position, provided all the care requirements
associated with that position are met; and
Long-term care home licensees
are not required to meet the training and orientation
requirements set out in the Long-Term Care Homes Act and associated regulation,
provided they ensure staff and volunteers take measures to ensure resident care
and safety.
Emergency Orders aimed at controlling the spread of COVID-19 must not, in practice, simultaneously detract from the fundamental requirements of the LTCHA and Regulation. Ensuring that sufficient and adequate staff is present and that these staff are adequately trained is vital to the safety and wellbeing of senior residents. Compliance with all aspects of the LTCHA and Regulation is critical in preventing injuries and deaths at long term care homes.
Bogoroch
& Associates LLP are committed to helping victims through these
difficult times by providing effective, efficient, and compassionate legal
representation. If you or a loved one has been the victim of nursing home negligence, contact our personal
injury lawyers today. Consultations are free and we would be
honoured to help you. Consultations are free and we would be honoured to help
you.
It can be easy to scoff at all the commercials and billboards for personal injury lawyers that one sees. These lawyers can be derisively called “ambulance chasers” by some. But a personal injury lawyer plays an important part in the legal system and can be a great benefit to their clients.
Here is why hiring someone like a burn injury lawyer is worth it for a person
rather than them trying to file their own claim.
They
Are Experts At Figuring Out Compensation
A veteran injury lawyer like the ones from Mullen & Mullen can quickly assess their client’s injuries and determine how much they are worth. They can then take that to the courthouse and tell the defendant how much they will have to pay for their client.
They Know
the System Well
Not only do they know what their client may get for their injuries, they also know what insurance will do in this situation. That means they can navigate the complexities with ease and make sure their client gets all the money that they deserve. This is especially important if there are several parties involved in this case, which can make the insurance situation even more complicated. In case you need an expert, check with mike morse.
They Will Fight on Their Client’s Behalf
There are times that insurance companies will not work in good faith. That can feel like a crushing blow to anyone trying to work their own case. If they have a lawyer, he or she will go after the insurance to make sure that everything is done fairly.
A big area for them is “pain and suffering” –
they want their clients to get as much money for their troubles, and it is
great to have someone looking out for them in that regard.
It is important to get the personal injury lawyer involved as soon as possible. According to the Mike Morse Injury Law Firm, if one were to try to file their own claim and then decide to get a lawyer a bit later, that will make the process even harder. One might try to do their own case if they live in a no-fault state or they got all they could from insurance. but it would be best to at least have a discussion with a lawyer before pressing ahead.
Ultimately, a personal injury lawyer like https://shunnarah.com/ can be well worth it for people who have had major injuries and need representation to take on the defendant’s counsel, whether it is insurance or the manufacturer of a defective product. Then the client can look back and realize that they made the correct decision.
Deposition summaries can cause stress and frustration to those
with a heavy workload. It can be challenging to handle such a heavy workload
alone. Many decide to outsource these summaries to a service that can give them
the help that they need. By trusting a team of experienced and dedicated
professionals, you have a plethora of support at your fingertips.
Summaries
The help that they can provide you with deposition summaries is
widely ranged. However, when choosing legal deposition services that will help you, some of the benefits include the following.
Capturing testimony accurately and thoroughly
A choice of a format
Hyperlinking table of contents
Summary pages
Transcript pages
Providing the best experience
each time, you get a professional service who does the job right.
Files
You will need help with
filing, too, as this can be another area that causes frustration. A summary
service will be able to help you in these areas.
Client documentation
Emailing and communication
Notes
PDFS
Correspondence
They will also be able to
provide help with pleadings. Remember that you have a fleet of trained
professionals at your fingertips that can help you most professionally when you
use a service.
Why You Should Choose A
Service
A service can provide help
digitally, but they can also help you by offering you the benefits below.
Conflict checks
Summarization
Clear formatting
Trial prep experience
Availability around the clock
Customer service is a
necessary part of trusting people to help you, and you need to know that if you
have that need of them, they will be there. If not, then you cannot trust them.
With this service, however, this isn’t an issue at all.
Audio
Audio help is another area
that is of vital importance. Imagine if someone had misheard something or
couldn’t understand? You’d have a trial that would be completely derailed.
Ensuring that you are getting the fullest details is vital. A summary service
can help you here as well as helping in other areas like these.
Police interviews
Dictations
DMEs
Recordings of abuse
Having audio help will ensure that no
mistakes are made and ensure that everything goes smoothly.
Choose The Service That Can Help
By choosing a service that cares about
you, you can lighten your workload, lighten your mood, be
more productive and help people get the
help they need. To find out about pricing, call for a consultation, and they
can help you right away!
The cost of a truck accident or indeed any road traffic accident can vary substantially from one accident to the next. Dependent on the unique variables involved in a specific accident, whether or not there were fatal injuries involved and the type of injuries sustained will directly impact and correlate with the average amount that a truck accident costs.
How Much Does The Average Fatal Truck Accident Cost?
According to the FMCSA the average cost of fatal accidents involving trucks with a weight of more than 10,000 pounds equates to $3,604,518 per fatal accident. However this report was published in 2007 and this amount, adjusted to inflation, equates to 4.604 million in 2021 (27.7% rate of inflation from 2007 to 2021).
This average cost can increase from one state to the next. The cost of a fatal accident can be substantial and can vary from one state jurisdiction to the next.
In 2019, The North Carolina Department of Transportation estimated that a fatal crash involving a truck in North Carolina, costs on average $10,417,000. The costs of truck crashes reduce in total cost per crash as accident severity decreases.
Generally speaking the cost of a fatal accident will surpass seven figures. These costs increase with severity and the amount of individuals that were fatally injured.
How Many Fatal Crashes Occur From Bus & Truck Accidents in The United States?
Bus and truck accidents account for thousands of crashes annually in the United States. From 1975 to 2018, the amount of truck accidents varied dramatically from year to the next. The fewest amount of truck accidents in a given year was in 2009. In fact, the three fewest amounts of bus and truck accidents in the United States occurred between 2009 (3,193), 2010 (3,512) and 2011 (3,593). It does not matter how damage is your car after an accident SELL US YOUR VEHICLE IN ANY CONDITION!
Conversely there have been years that accounted for a much larger amount of fatal accidents. The late 1970’s and the decade of the 1980’s had several fatal accidents involving trucks and busses. The highest years for fatal accidents relating to bus and truck accidents are 1979 (6,007), 1978 (5,758) and 1980 (5,353).
It’s curious to consider that both the fewest amounts of fatal accidents, along with the largest amounts of fatal accidents involved years that occured in three year time spans. The fewest amounts of fatal accidents in a given three year time frame was between 2009-2011 for an average of 3,433 fatal accidents per year. The largest amounts of fatal accidents in a three year time frame occurred between 1978-1980 for an average of 5,706 fatal truck and bus accidents per year.
The table below outlines the amount of fatal crashes involving large trucks and busses between 1975 and 2018. Crashes peaked in the late 1970’s and generally decreased as time progressed. The grey section from 2016-2018 had a spike in fatal accidents as trucks were reclassified to include some vehicles that were previously considered as light trucks.
For years between 1975 – 2018, there were a total of 202,542 fatal crashes that involved large trucks or busses. Over this period of time, the average amount of fatal accidents amounted to 4,710 annually.
What Causes Fatal Truck Crashes To Increase or Decrease?
There is no one-size fits all answer for this question. Rather there are numerous components that can impact the amount of fatal crashes in a given period of time. As time progressed over the latter quarter of the 20th century and into the 21st century, there were several regulations in the trucking industry that limited the amount of time that limits the amount of time trucking drivers can drive, along with other factors that a trucking professional can and cannot do.
While driving regulations were implemented into the trucking industry beginning in 1938. The now abolished Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) set rules and regulations that outlined the amount of driving hours were limited to. However the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 deregulated the trucking industry and drastically weakened and decentralized the trucking unions. When unions are weakened, this can in turn lead to higher levels of competition, changes to the industrial norms and a shift in wages.
In 1982, The Surface Transportation Assistance Act was implemented that protected whistleblowers that reported safety violations from facing retaliatory measures. Whistleblowers that report unsafe working conditions can help facilitate a safer working environment, but whistleblowers can also become targets of retaliatory measures from employers and colleagues. While fatal accidents initially decreased in 1982, fatal accidents rebounded to an average of 5,074 bus and truck accidents over from 1983-1989.
In 1991, the US Congress recognized a need for a drug and alcohol free workplace in the transportation industry. The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act required Department of Transportation Agencies to test their employees for alcohol and drugs. The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act did not result in a significant decrease of fatal accidents over the following years.
In 2003, changes were applied to the hours of service rules mandating a “34-hour restart”. The 34 hour restart period allowed truckers to reset their workweek if that driver is nearing the maximum allotment of trucking hours in a week.
It is important to note that in 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adjusted the vehicle classification of a truck to include 329 light pickup trucks as large trucks. With larger amounts of vehicles now classified as “large trucks”, the amount of fatal accidents in the three year period from 2016 – 2018, jumped drastically compared to the prior three year period from 2013 – 2015.
For fatal truck accident data in the last quarter of the 20th century the average amount of fatal truck accidents in a given year equates to 5,092 per year.
In the 21st Century (2000 – 2018) the average amount of fatal truck accidents in a given year amounts to 4,462 fatal crashes that involved large trucks or busses.
Between 2013 – 2015, the average annual amount of fatal accidents equates to 3,780. After the classification of a trucking vehicle was revised, the amount of accidents increased to 4,537 per year. This reclassification of what is considered a large truck (greater than 10,000 lbs) resulted in an increase of fatal accidents in the amount of 20%.
Do More Trucks On The Road Lead to More Truck Accidents?
While the average number of trucks continue to increase as the population of the United States grows, one would hypothesize that as the population grows, and as more trucks are on the road, the increase of fatal truck accidents would also follow. However, this is not the case. An increase in trucking regulations and safety measures helped facilitate a smaller amount of truck accidents as the amount of trucks on the road increased.
Some of the most common causes of truck accidents include failure to maintain a truck, driver fatigue, excess speed, impaired driving and improper loading or hiring of unqualified drivers.
For data available from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration fatal truck accidents decreased in the 21st century compared to the latter quarter of the 20th century. The reduction of annual average fatal truck accidents reduced from 1975-1999 compared to the years 2000 – 2018. Since 2000, the average annual amount of fatal truck accidents have experienced a decrease in fatal accidents. The decrease in the 21st century equates to a 12.4% reduction compared to data available from 1975-1999.
As the years have progressed, trucking regulations and new safety measures have helped fatal accidents decrease from one decade to the next. It is however important to remember that as the population grows, so too does the demand for products – and the vast majority of products are delivered by trucks.
The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted residents in long-term care homes. In Ontario (Canada), a total of 2,564 people has died from the novel coronavirus, 1,799 of which are residents in long-term care homes. It is no surprise that older age, complex chronic health conditions and underlying health problems are prevalent amongst residents in long-term care facilities thereby rendering them the most vulnerable demographic to the novel coronavirus.
Long-term care homes in Canada are facing
an unprecedented health care challenge. The highly contagious COVID-19 pandemic
has drastically compromised the safety of the elderly, who are among the most
vulnerable to the virus. It is no surprise that a significant percentage of the
COVID-19 related deaths across Canada have occurred in long-term care
facilities.
The Residence Herron in Montreal is the
most glaring example of this with an alarming thirty-one deaths since March 13,
2020. Health care officials have confirmed that many of the staff had deserted
the facility, with reports of residents found lying in soiled beds, abandoned,
hungry and thirsty. Sadly, the Pinecrest Nursing Home in Bobcaygeon, Ontario
has also confirmed nearly thirty deaths since March 20, 2020. Despite
being highly contagious with airborne and droplet transmission, many of the
residents were not appropriately distanced from each other to mitigate the
spread of the infection. Similarly, Eatonville Care Centre, a long-term care
home in Etobicoke, Ontario has also reported that thirty-one residents infected
with the virus have now died.
While these are extraordinary times, the
news media has shed a spotlight on the systemic problems concerning long-term
care facilities. In particular health, safety and sanitary problems have long
plagued nursing homes. Among these downfalls include the paucity of specialized
personnel, chronic staff shortages, heavy workload, and low salaries, placing
the residents of these facilities chronically at risk.
Long term care homes are regulated by
the Long-Term Care Homes Act (“LTCHA”), S.O. 2007, c. 8 and
Ontario Regulation 79/10 made under the LTCHA. The LTCHA is
designed to help ensure that residents of long-term care homes receive safe,
consistent, high-quality, resident-centered care. Long-term care homes may be
legally responsible for the injury or death that occurs following neglect, abuse,
or improper care, and may be liable to provide financial compensation to cover
medical bills and pain and suffering stemming from the incident. Long term care
homes can be found liable when management or staff members neglect to take some
action to prevent the incident from occurring.
As the pandemic rages on, the Government of
Ontario has implemented Emergency Orders that have allowed for greater
flexibility to the LTCHA. During the declared emergency, long term
care homes are authorized to fill any staff position with a person who, in the
long-term care home licensee’s opinion, has adequate skills, training and
knowledge to perform the duties required for the position. Additionally,
pursuant to the Emergency Order, long term care homes are not required
to:
Ensure that the minimum number
of staffing as set out in the LTCHA are met for a position,
provided that all of the care requirements associated with that position are
met;
Comply with training and
orientation requirements provided that staff and volunteers take measures to
ensure resident care and safety;
Comply with prescribed
screening measures provided that they adopt other measures that ensure resident
care and safety;
Document information unless it
involves an incident of a “significant nature” or is required to ensure the
proper care and safety of a resident;
Immediately document changes to
a resident’s plan of care unless they involve changes of a “significant nature”
or of which staff members and others need to be immediately aware;
Use flexible processes for the
admission, transfer, and discharge of residents.
The goal of these emergency measures is to
give long term care homes flexibility to respond to the pandemic. However,
there is cause for concern that there may be an increased rate of incidents of
negligence. For instance, there may be unqualified staff that lacks the
expertise or credentials to work with the elderly, causing more harm to such a
vulnerable population. Poorly trained employees may not be adequately
trained in infection control. Also, loosening the requirements of
documentation, such as incident reporting, can further increase the
risk to seniors who experience negligence or abuse. There can be a lack
of transparency in reporting, hindering accountability. It is important that we
remain vigilant about protecting our most vulnerable population during the
pandemic. Long term care homes must continue to ensure a safe and secure
environment for residents.
Bogoroch
& Associates LLP are committed to helping victims through these
difficult times by providing effective, efficient, and compassionate legal
representation. If you or a loved one has been the victim of nursing home negligence, contact our personal
injury lawyers today. Consultations are free and we would be
honoured to help you. Consultations are free and we would be honoured to help
you.
Bogoroch & Associates LLP strongly believes that injuries and accidents are entitled to access to justice. The following is based primarily on personal injury laws in Ontario, Canada:
When a child plays on a sports team or participates in a physical education class, there is a serious injury risk. If your child has been injured in these circumstances, it is possible to be compensated. Canadian courts have affirmed that an athlete, by willingly participating in a sport, does not assume responsibility for all risk of injury.
School boards, coaches, teachers, and athletic
organizations have a duty to supervise children playing sports in the manner of
a “prudent or careful parent,” considering all the surrounding circumstances
and the number of children under supervision. This “careful parent” standard
means that schools and coaches must:
Ensure that the activity was suitable for the
children’s age and condition;
Properly train and coach the children in the
activity;
Provide adequate equipment and arrange it
suitably; and,
Properly supervise the activity.[i]
For example, the school board Myers v. Peel
County Board of Education failed to follow numbers 3 and 4 of the
above list.[ii] In that case, a 15-year-old boy was injured while trying to
dismount the rings in gymnastics class. The Physical Education teacher had
given Myers permission to practice on the rings without supervision.
At trial, the teacher testified that Myers had been
taught the appropriate safety measures, such as having a “spotter” to break his
fall. However, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the faculty should not
have allowed students to use the rings without supervision. It was also found
that the school did not provide adequate protective mats below the gymnastics
equipment.
However schools and coaches are only liable for reasonablyforeseeable risks of injury. They will not be held liable if the injury was unforeseeable or if the injury could not have been prevented by taking reasonable precautions.[iii]
Unforeseeable injuries include situations where a
player demonstrates a deliberate intent to cause serious injury to another
player.[iv] In Thomas v. Hamilton (City), the plaintiff broke his
neck while tackling another player in a high school football game.[v] His coach
had taught the team the correct techniques for tackling, such as instructing
players to slightly extend their necks and make initial contact with their
shoulders rather than their heads. It was established at trial that the
plaintiff did not follow the correct tackling technique. Therefore, the Ontario
Court of Appeal held that the coach and school board were not liable for
Thomas’ injuries. The injury was sustained during a routine play and fell
within the inherent risks of contact sports.
Thomas also argued that he had a neck condition (termed
“long, lean swan neck”), making him more susceptible to neck injuries. It was
alleged that the coach should have recognized this condition and warned Thomas
about the increased risk. However, the court rejected this theory. It held that
the “long, lean swan neck” theory was not widely known outside academic
literature at the time, and coaches could not be expected to (a) know of the idea
and (b) recognize it in the player. Coaches are expected to demonstrate a
higher level of skill and expertise in the sport than the average person, but
they are not expected to know absolutely everything about the sport.
Finally, once a player has been injured, schools
and coaches must provide prompt medical services. The coach in Poulton
v. Notre Dame College was found liable for his injuries because he
refused to let the player see a doctor. The player developed severe hip
infections, which may have been prevented by prompt medical treatment.[vi]
Bogoroch Associates LLP is passionate about helping people and children who have experienced
injuries and accidents.
Bibliography
[i] Thornton v School Trustees of School
District No 57 (Prince George), 73 DLR (3d) 35, [1976] 5 WWR 240; aff’d
[1978] 2 SCR 267.
[ii] Myers v Peel County Board of Education,
[1981] 2 SCR 21.
[iii] Dunn v the University of Ottawa,
[1995] OJ No 2856.
[iv] Ibid at para 36.
[v] Thomas v Hamilton (City), Board of
Education, [1994] OJ No 2444.
[vi] Poulton et al. v Notre Dame College et
al. (1975), 60 DLR (3d) 501.
All employers are by law required to give their workers reasonably healthy and safe working environments. Even so, this is not always the case, and you might be injured at your workplace. The common work-related injuries include slips, falls, spinal injuries from heavy lifting, strain injuries, equipment malfunction injuries in factories, and car accident-related injuries.
Anyone who is seriously injured at work should get help from a trusted hurt on the job lawyer rhode island. You have the legal right to file a claim for workers’ compensation when injured at work. Though, your rights for compensation will vary according to your state. In general, workers’ compensation laws allow you to seek medical attention for your injury, get disability compensation if you need time off, file a claim for the injury you sustain and be represented by an employment attorney for your claim.
The following are some instances in work-related injuries where your first call after getting medical attention should be to an employment attorney so that you are assured of fair compensation for your injuries.
Your Workers’ Compensation Will Not Cover Everything You Need
At times, your workers’ compensation is limited in how much it can pay for your hospital bills. When these bills surpass the limit, and you have not yet fully recovered, you are left on your own. Moreover, you sometimes might be permanently disabled and cannot manage to work indefinitely to sustain yourself but, your workers’ compensation does not see the need to continue supporting you with weekly payments or a lump sum settlement. If you cannot get everything you need from your workers’ compensation, an employment attorney from https://www.helpingthehurt.com/ can help.
Your Employer Defends Him/Herself against Your Claim or Retaliates
Sometimes, bosses deny their workers’ claims for compensation for injuries sustained at work. This is because they do not want to be considered high-risk clients by insurance companies and pay high premiums. Other bosses will start discriminating against you at work by reducing your pay or working hours to bully you into abandoning a claim. Getting philadelphia workers’ compensation lawyer in these cases ensures you get fairly compensated and suffer no work-related discrimination.
Your Injuries Are Caused By the Actions of a Third Party
Workers’ compensation is meant to avert a civil lawsuit for injuries sustained in the workplace. Even so, you are still allowed to sue and get compensation if someone apart from your employer caused your injury provided it is related to your work. For example, if you are a delivery person, then a driver hits you while you are out making deliveries and severely injures you, then you have the right to claim for workers’ compensation. In this case, you can also get compensated by the motorist that injured you, meaning you get compensation from two parties. Unfortunately, workplace-related injuries involving a third party are not very easy to win without the input of an experienced employment lawyer.
Are you looking for professional workplace physiotherapy Brisbane? With the help of Safe and Healthy, a trusted company that helped hundreds of Australian businesses reduce and prevent injuries, your employees will be able to reduce their health risks.
You Are Currently Receiving or Want to Apply For Social Security Disability Payments
At times, you might already be disabled and are receiving SSDI {Social Security Disability Insurance} benefits at the time of your work-related injury. On the other hand, the injury you sustain at your workplace might qualify you to receive these benefits. Either way, the structuring of your workers’ compensation settlement will affect the amount of SSDI benefits you receive. In most cases, the benefits are reduced. An attorney can help you structure the settlement’s payout in a way that has a minimum effect on your SSDI benefits.
Even when you have a relatively straightforward case that does not fall among the above, consider contacting an employment lawyer to get a free consultation on any complexities that might hamper your compensation. Nonetheless, not everyone who is hurt at work will need an attorney to handle their workers’ compensation. The following are some instances when you do not have to hire an employment lawyer to help you get This workers’ compensation:
Your injury is minor, like a cut that needs a stitch or two or a twisted arm.
Your employer does not dispute that you were injured at the workplace.
You have not taken too many days off work to recuperate after your injury.
There is no pre-existing illness affecting the same body part injured in your workplace.
In instances when you are sure an employment lawyer is necessary for your workers’ compensation claim, do not let your lack of funds forego the attorney’s hiring, look for an expert that will not overcharge you, look for Bob Bratt. Employment lawyers do not bill their clients in an hourly fashion. They instead will charge a contingency fee. This is a percentage of the compensation you will be paid when you win the claim. Most states have a limit on the percentage a lawyer can claim for his/her fees. All in all, when injured at work, get the lawyer to help you win your fair settlement.
Based on personal injury law in Florida and generally in the US
The field of compensation law encompasses a wide variety of types of personal injury cases. A compensation claim can be made when an individual suffers bodily, mentally, or dies because of someone else’s negligent conduct.
Personal injuries can take
numerous forms and occur in various situations, with the law classifying them
accordingly. Vehicle accidents and industrial injuries, for example, are
governed by rules that are specific to the circumstances.
These statutes spell out the
procedures and requirements for each form of claim, as well as the time limits
within which an injured individual can file a claim. This is known as the
‘statute of limitations.’ If a claim is not filed within this time frame, the
potential plaintiff may be considered ‘statute barred.’
A statute of limitations is
legislation that limits the amount of time to file a civil case with a court.
These are for various types of litigation, and each state and the federal
government have its own deadlines.
Most personal injury
lawsuits, or situations where the basis for liability is the personal injury
law notion of “negligence.” These cases may be subject to the same
statute of limitations in any state. This covers litigation arising from car
accidents, slip and fall occurrences, dog bites, and other types of injuries.
However, a single lawsuit may contain many claims (or “causes of
action” in legalese) with varying deadlines.
After an automobile
collision, you may file a lawsuit against the at-fault motorist, with one cause
of action for personal injury (your physical hurt) and another for property
loss (damage to your vehicle).
How Long Do You have to File a Personal Injury Claim After an
Accident?
A personal injury claim must
be filed within three years of the date of the accident or the date of your
illness’s diagnosis. This time limit is sometimes called the “limitation
period,” and you must not wait too long to file your claim.
The court has the power to
extend the three-year deadline, but this is uncommon and would require a
compelling justification. It is safer to assume that this time restriction may
not be opened. You should contact an attorney as soon as possible following
your accident to begin your claim.
Within three years, you must
file your claim with the court. It may not be possible to complete your claim
within three years, depending on the complexity of your case and the severity
of your injuries. There’s no need to be concerned if you’ve filed your lawsuit
with the court within the time limit (known as “issuing proceedings”).
What Are Some of the Exceptions to the Three-Year Time Limit?
Claims on behalf of minors can be filed at any time before the child reaches the age of 18. When children reach the age of 18, they can file a claim at any time up to the age of 21
Criminal injury claims – the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) might manage your case if you were injured in a violent crime. After an occurrence, the CICA sets a two-year time restriction for filing a claim
There are no time constraints for filing a claim on behalf of someone who lacks the mental capacity to conduct their own case
Fatal claims — you have three years from the date of your loved one’s death to file a claim on their behalf. If a post-mortem determines that an accident or disease caused the death, you have three years from the date of discovery to file a claim
Accidents on board ships – You usually have two years from when you departed the ship to file a claim after an accident on a cruise liner or ferry. On cargo ships, the same time limit applies, but it starts from the day of your injuries
International flights – You have two years from when you arrive at your ultimate destination to file a claim after an accident on an international flight. This includes any accidents that occur after you have passed through passport control
Domestic flights — claims must be filed within two years of the flight’s arrival
Accidents/illnesses abroad — based on the country’s legislation, different time limits apply
Donnie Strompf – Digital Mastermind
When it comes to the digital world of learning and marketing, Donnie Strompf, founder of GoodatMarketing and BizSwipe, knows a few things about smart learning. It’s one of his successes as a teacher, mentor, and businessman.
Strumpf is a marketing professional with over nine years of experience. His success and achievements have only been matched by his ability to lead and teach, as well as provide invaluable understanding of the field has been a strength for him. In a way, Strompf’s success in the area of digital technology and marketing is one of the reasons for his success. Time and time again,
Bogoroch & Associates LLP strongly believes
that victims of Personal Injury are entitled to access to justice. The following is based primarily on accident claims laws in Ontario, Canada:-
In Ontario, every automobile
insurance policy provides no-fault accident benefits coverage regulated by
the Statutory Accident
Benefits Schedule (known as Ontario Regulation 34/10).
Accident Benefits serve as a lifeline for injured persons, providing
essential protections, such as medical care and weekly indemnity payments.
On August 27, 2015, the
Ontario government announced changes to Accident Benefits, by way of Ontario
Regulation 251/15, to take effect on June 1, 2016. These changes will
drastically reduce much-needed funding to accident victims. It will also
diminish their access to rehabilitation, non-earner benefits, and attendant
care, which will add pressure on the already strained public health care
system.
As of June 1, 2016, the
following changes will take effect for accidents occurring on or after June 1,
2016:
Reduction in Non-Catastrophic Benefit Limits
The availability of medical and rehabilitation benefits plays an essential role in lessening the effects of disability and facilitating meaningful reintegration into family life, the labor market, and society. Attendant care benefits are equally important by providing funding for the services of an in-home care attendant or admission to a long-term care facility. Attendant care benefits are intended to support activities of daily living, such as bathing and eating.
Currently, non-catastrophic
benefits, including medical and rehabilitation services and attendant care
benefits, are payable to a maximum of $86,000 over ten years ($50,000 for
medical and rehabilitation benefits, plus $36,000 in attendant care benefits).
As of June 1, 2016, this
will be reduced to a combined total of $65,000 over five years. The change in the
duration of the benefit period, reduced from 10 to 5 years, will not apply to
children under 18 at the time of the accident.
The Definition of “Catastrophic Impairment”
is Narrowed
The designation of “Catastrophic Impairment” is applied to the most severely injured individuals. Those who are catastrophically impaired have suffered severe loss, including but not limited to paraplegia, quadriplegia, blindness, loss of an arm or a leg, and severe brain injuries.
The upcoming legislative
amendments have introduced significant changes to the definition of
catastrophic impairment. The new definition will update criteria for traumatic
brain injuries, amputations, ambulatory mobility, loss of vision, and mental
and behavioral impairments. The Glasgow Coma Scale test will no longer be
applied.
Mental and behavioral
disorders will qualify for catastrophic status only if the claimant suffers
from marked impairment in three of the four categories of function or extreme
impairment in one category, and the person must be precluded from useful
functioning. Previously, an injured person would qualify for catastrophic
impairment with a marked impairment in one of the four categories of function.
These amendments serve to
narrow eligibility for designation of catastrophic impairment, and erode the
availability of benefits to those persons who have sustained serious injuries
that do not fall within the more limited parameters of entitlement.
Catastrophic Impairment Benefit Limits
Halved
Individuals with catastrophic impairments are dependent on their accident benefits to provide financial security in all sectors of their lives. Some individuals require attendant care 24/7, while others require a multi-disciplinary rehabilitation team.
Currently, individuals who
are catastrophically impaired are entitled to a maximum of $2,000,000.00 – this
includes $1,000,000.00 for medical and rehabilitation benefits, and
$1,000,000.00 for attendant care benefits.
This amount will now
be cut in half for a combined total of only $1,000,000.00 for all
medical, rehabilitation and attendant care needs.
Non-Earner Benefit is Significantly Reduced
Non-earner benefits are
available to injured persons who were not employed at the time of the accident,
and are not eligible to receive income replacement benefits. Currently,
non-earner benefits are payable for life, after a waiting period of 26 weeks, and
as long as the injured person continues to meet the statutory test for
eligibility. Non-earner benefits are payable at $185.00 per week up to the
two year post-accident mark, and for some, this may increase to $320.00 per
week after the two-year mark.
As of June 1, 2016, the
duration of payment of non-earner benefits will be reduced to a maximum of two
years following the accident, but the initial waiting period is reduced to
4 weeks.
The effect of this change
will be felt most by those individuals who, at the time of the accident, were
students and seeking entry into the workforce. For example, a university
student who is severely injured in an accident, such that they may never be
able to be gainfully employed, will only receive non-earner benefits for a
period of 2 years following the accident. After 2 years, they will be left with
no income supplement from their accident benefits insurer.
The Right to Sue and Arbitrate is
Eliminated
Injured persons will no longer be entitled to commence a lawsuit against their auto insurance company for the wrongful denial of accident benefits. Nor will individuals be able to arbitrate their denied accident benefits.
Instead, the new regulation
provides only one option, which is to commence a proceeding at the Ontario
Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”).
