Do You Know Your Rights?

            According to the California Highway Patrol’s 2007 Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System, there were 188,551 collisions on state highways in 2007.  Of the 188,551 collisions, 184994 resulted in injury.  Following these collisions, most vehicle owners report the accident to their insurance company and have their vehicles repaired.  Once the vehicle is repaired, the vehicle owners go on with their lives and continue to drive their cars with the same sense of security they had prior to the collision.  What most people do not realize, however, is that they are now more likely to be seriously injured in a subsequent car accident if the dealership failed to do one thing – replace their seat belts. 

            Most people do not know a vehicle’s manual requires the replacement of all seatbelts worn during a collision.  Unless a consumer actually reads the car manual cover to cover, they miss the section that states:  “If a seat belt is worn during a crash, it must be replaced by the dealer.  A belt that has been worn during a crash may not provide the same level of protection in a subsequent crash.”  (2008 Honda Civic Owner’s Manual)  If seat belts worn during a crash are not replaced they can be less effective in subsequent collisions and cause serious injuries and death.  The replacement of your set belts worn during a crash should be covered under your insurance policy and, as such, should be paid for by your insurance provider.  When you take your vehicle to be repaired be sure to tell the repair shop or dealership which seatbelts were in use at the time of the collision.  Once they know, the shop should replace the seat belts at the same time they make the repairs to your vehicle.  If the repair shop/dealership does not replace the seat belts, show them that the car manual requires replacement of seat belts worn during a crash.

            If the repair shop/dealership still refuses to replace the seat belts, contact your insurance company immediately and request that the seat belts be replaced.  Of you or someone you know has been involved in a car accident, big or small, please review your car owner’s manual to see what your vehicle’s manufacturer requires.  If necessary, contact your insurance company and request the replacement of your seat belts.  Doing so may prevent possibly serious injury from a future collision.

            Should your insurance company refuse to replace your seat belts, contact a qualified attorney. 

            The York Law Corporation is a leader in consumer class action lawsuits and personal injury law.  We have extensive experience in holding insurance companies accountable and ensuring they pay for everything they are required to pay for by law.  We strive to prevent consumers from being taken advantage of by the insurance companies’ three D’s: delay, deny, and don’t pay.  It is our goal to stop the manipulative business practices of big business.

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com

Can the Consumer Ever Win?

             Somewhere in your cell phone or credit card contract, buried in the fine print is a mandatory arbitration clause which waives your right to a jury trial and instead binds you to arbitration if there is ever a dispute.  You may not have known that you have waived your right to hold a corporation accountable through a jury trial and instead agreed to arbitration because you did not read the lengthy contract.  Usually these sneaky arbitration clauses are buried somewhere in a tiny paragraph in the middle of the massive contract.  Now, these arbitration clauses are being quietly added to nursing home contracts.  The Nursing Home Industry is now including these pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses to their admission contracts and you need to know what you can do to protect your loved ones. 

              As you are making the difficult decision of putting a loved one into a nursing home, you could also inadvertently sign away you right to go to court to for neglect or abuse of your loved one.  With the deadly arbitration clause, if there is the death or injury of a loved one, you would be required to fight your dispute in a secret and binding arbitration process that favors the Nursing Home Industry.  When you signed the admission agreement with the nursing home you agreed to have any dispute heard by an arbitrator chosen by the nursing home, to have the proceedings held in private, and for the decision to be unrecorded.  (This has only changed in California which now requires decisions by arbitrators to be recorded.  However, arbitrations still favor the nursing homes, not the patient or their family). 

            If you bring a matter before an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators you are most likely going to lose.  Since these private arbitrators are repeatedly hired by the Nursing Home Industry, it is highly likely that they are going to rule in favor of the nursing home in order to get hired again.  Nursing homes and other large companies are going to hire arbitrators that they know to favor their side.  A recent NPR broadcast highlighted a study claiming that 94% of consumers lost in arbitration and those arbitrators that ruled in favor of the consumer were typically not re-hired by the company for future arbitrations.  This statistic is not wholly for nursing homes but gives a good indication of ones chances of prevailing in an arbitration proceeding. 

           WARNING:  Be aware that you do NOT have to sign any nursing home admission agreement!  The nursing home cannot refuse to admit your loved one into their facility just because you do not sign the contract that contains an arbitration agreement.  By no means are you required to accept an arbitration clause in a nursing home contract.  What should you do if you have put a family member in a nursing home?  If you do not want to enter into an arbitration agreement, carefully read the nursing home’s Admission Agreement and feel free to cross out or decline the arbitration clause.  Please understand that you do not have to initial or approve of any arbitration clause contained in a nursing home Admission Agreement.  You can protect your right to a jury trial should the nursing home neglect or abuse your loved one. 

            The York Law Corporation is very aware of the fact that many companies are taking advantage of consumers by attempting to sneak in arbitration clauses into their agreements.  We are experienced in nursing home admissions agreements.  We are familiar with nursing homes trying to include mandatory, binding arbitration clauses to hold secret and unrecorded sessions that are inherently unfair to the consumer.  We believe that cases of elder neglect need to be heard by a jury and be put on public record.

If you are worried about entering into an arbitration agreement and a resident of Northern California, the York Law Corporation will review nursing home admission agreements for FREE to ensure that you do not sign away your right to go to court.

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com

Weight Loss Product Causes Liver Damage and Other Health Problems

            On May 1, 2009, lovate Health Sciences, the Canadian based maker of Hydroxycut issued a recall due to the harmful side effects if its product.  The FDA reports that due to the use of Hydroxycut, there have been dozens of cases of liver damage, jaundice, and other related injuries, including one death of a 19-year-old boy in 2007.

            This is not the first time a dietary supplement has been recalled.  In 2004, the government banned ephedra in many supplements because it was linked to heart attacks and strokes.  Many wonder why it takes so long for harmful diet pills to be recalled or why they are distributed in the first place.  People tend to believe that the FDA has verified that these diet products are at least safe and effective, and in reality they have not.  The fact of the matter is that the FDA does not regulate dietary supplements prior to their distribution.  Regulators monitor aftermarket reports for signs of trouble. There is no requirement that the diet pill manufacturers meet FDA regulations prior to putting the medication out on the market.  The public needs to be aware of the fact that although there are strict guidelines that the FDA requires of diet or supplement pills, these do not come into effect until reports come in about harmful or fatal side effects. 

            According to a Contra Costa Times article, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on Wednesday June 17, 2009 alleging “violations of various states’ deceptive trade practices acts, misrepresentation, fraudulent, false and misleading advertisements, and unjust enrichment by distributing a product about which unsubstantiated claims of safety and effectiveness were made.”  The makers of Hydroxycut have known for a long time that their product is defective and causes liver damage, and yet they continued to market it as safe.  Hydroxycut failed to warn consumers of the risks injury when taking their product.  The FDA and dietary supplement companies need to come up with a means of regulating these dangerous medicines and the way they are advertised to consumers.

            Hydroxycut, which is now banned, was recalled because it caused injury or death.  Consumers beware of taking Hydroxycut, it can cause liver damage, jaundice, or other health related problems.  If you are taking Hydroxycut please stop immediately and return the product to the store you purchased it for a refund. 

Be aware: before taking any over the counter medicine, please consult with a physician and do research about the product.  If you have any adverse effects from an over the counter supplement, you should get medical attention immediately and report the adverse effect to the FDA.

The York Law Corporation is experienced in lawsuits dealing with defective products.  We have represented clients against consumer fraud and dangerous products that cause serious injury or death.  We believe in protecting consumers against unsafe products, false advertising and unfair or deceptive business practices.

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com

Their Actions Should be a McCrime

           Do you remember the infamous McDonald’s coffee case in 1992?  Many people think that they know the story but the truth is that what you know or remember is probably wrong.  Insurance companies are thrilled that what you know or think you know is wrong because it means that their revision of the story has stuck with you. 

            One of the most commonly known stories that have been spun by insurance companies to try to justify “Tort Reform” (a.k.a. Tort Deform) is the case of Ms. Stella Liebeck who sustained third degree burn injuries from scalding hot coffee.  Many people believe that Stella Liebeck was driving through the McDonald’s drive through to get her morning coffee.  Then, as she was driving the lid came open and spilled all over her.  She then received millions of dollars because the jury wanted to punish McDonald’s for her “minimal injuries”.  That spin on the infamous McDonald’s Coffee Cup case is false and insurance companies are banking on your believing the myth they created.

Here are the real facts of the case.   Between 1982 and 1992, McDonalds had a reported 700 burn related injuries due to their coffee being served between 180 and 185° Fahrenheit, which they knew to be too hot for consumption.  Before this lawsuit, more than 700 people made complaints to McDonalds for scalding coffee burns in the previous ten years. Despite these numerous complaints, McDonald’s failed to consult a burn expert and failed to lower the temperature of its coffee. 

Ms. Liebeck, who was 79 years old at the time, was a passenger in a parked car getting her breakfast at the McDonald’s drive through.  The driver of the car pulled over to allow her to take off the lid and add cream and sugar to the cup.  There was no cup holder in the car so Ms. Liebeck held the coffee in between her legs.  The slick Styrofoam cup flipped backwards dumping scalding liquid into her lap and saturated the cotton sweat-suit she was wearing – which in turn clung to her legs holding the hot liquid against her skin.  Ms. Liebeck went to the emergency room and was hospitalized for 7 days with third degree burns over her genital, thigh and upper leg.  She received surgery (skin grafts) and had to stay home for 3 weeks to heal.  She lost 30 pounds and her family thought she wasn’t going to make it. 

As for the money she was awarded, many think it was millions of dollars.  But that is not true.  She was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20% at fault.  She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, but the judge later reduced that to $480,000. 

            Before filing the lawsuit, Ms. Liebeck’s family attempted to settle with McDonald’s for only her out-of-pocket expenses of a little more than $2,000.  McDonald’s would not budge past $800.  

What does this mean for you, the consumer? Third degree burns occur at 185 degrees in just 2 – 5 seconds. They can require skin grafting and other expensive medical treatments that can exceed tens of thousands of dollars and inflict severe prolonged pain and permanent disability.

            Be aware of the potential danger of scalding liquids when at home or elsewhere. Make sure that children don’t have access to scalding liquids. Be aware that hot water is particularly harmful for young children because their skin is thinner than an adult’s.  A child will suffer a severe burn if exposed to 140-degree water for just three seconds. Be aware that elderly people are more vulnerable as well due to sensitive skin and slower reaction times.

Make sure that you know all the facts before buying into the sensational stories permeating our culture. Don’t let insurance company propaganda rob you of your rights to use our civil justice system to ensure your family’s safety.

The York Law Corporation is experienced in personal injury law, including burn injuries.  We zealously represent our clients against insurance companies to prevent manipulation and strive to achieve excellent results either in court or by settlement.  We also know that insurance companies are notorious for the three D’s: delay, deny, and don’t pay.  We consider it a vital part of our practice to ensure that irresponsible companies take responsibility for any negligent or harmful action.

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com

Bankrupt and No Longer Liable for Injuries or Death from Defective Products from Pre-Bankruptcy Days

In what seems a futile attempt to save the crumbling economy, the U.S. poured a great deal of tax dollars to keep the auto-industry afloat.  The car company GM received $49.8 billion dollars and Chrysler received $15.5 billion.  In addition, Chrysler Financial the finance company for the company received $1.5 billion and GMAC, the lending company for both GM and Chrysler received $13.5 billion in government bailout money. The government distributed this money to GM, Chrysler, and other companies in the hopes that they would make it through the economic crisis and continue to manufacture products and provide jobs.  After taking their share of bailout funds, GM and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy. 

The Ad Hoc Committee of Consumer Victims of GM and Chrysler recently put out an advertisement which highlights the serious issues that arise from these two companies declaring bankruptcy.  GM and Chrysler no longer protect consumers that are injured or killed from a product defect that existed pre-bankruptcy.  Under the bankruptcy plan for both companies, consumers are no longer protected if they or a loved one are injured or killed due to a defect on a GM or Chrysler vehicle that existed pre-bankruptcy.  This is disheartening considering that in between Quarter 3 of 2003 and Quarter 4 of 2008; Chrysler had approximately 3,497 death and injury claims. GM had an estimated 15,284 death and injury claims during the same time frame.  This means that the two companies accounted for 47% of all claims filed against auto manufacturers between 2003 and 2008.

According to an article on June 23, 2009 from United Press International, a recent safety report has said that more than 3,400 U.S. citizens could be injured or killed in the next year by defective cars produced by GM and Chrysler.  What do consumers do about future injury and death related claims?  Who do the consumers turn to when they are hurt from a defective product?  These two companies deny claims related to a product defect from pre-bankruptcy days, saying it is no longer their problem even though they are responsible.  Other than the insurance companies, consumers who have been injured or have family members who were killed by pre-bankruptcy defective products now have no one to pay for the costs related to their injuries.

The York Law Corporation is a national leader in prosecuting consumer class action lawsuits.  Our firm believes in protecting consumers from being taken advantage of by large corporations.  We specialize in cases where businesses have unfair or deceptive business practices that take advantage of consumers.

York Law Corporation

Sacramento, California

www.yorklawcorp.com