Blog Home

Information About Morphine Sulfate Recall by Ethex
Posted by: Jill Bollwerk
February 04, 2009
Topic: Morphine Sulfate Recall by Ethex

On June 10, 2008, Ethex Corporation issued a nationwide recall of their morphine sulfate extended-release tablets.  The recall covered the drug that was distributed between April 16 and April 27, 2008.  Morphine Sulfate is a potent drug used to manage severe pain.  The initial recall was issued after a report that a tablet with double the appropriate thickness was identified.  Because of the discovery of the oversized tablets, the entire lot was recalled. 

The consequence of an overdose of morphine sulfate can result in life-threatening conditions.  We have received calls from morphine sulfate users and are investigating these claims very seriously. 

To read the FDA press release concerning the recall, visit the FDA's website.  If you want to speak to a lawyer about your rights, give us a call at 314-315-8111 or toll-free at 877-315-8111. To learn more about our firm, visit the Bollwerk & Ryan website. 

Permalink

Tricks of the Trade: How Insurance Companies Deny
Posted by: Jill Bollwerk
November 24, 2008
Topic: Insurance Company Tactics

Below are excerpts from the AAJ Insurance Report entitled "Tricks of the Trade:  How Insurance Companies Deny, Delay, Confuse and Refuse," reprinted with permission of the American Association of Justice. 

Executive Summary

The U.S. insurance industry has trillions of dollars in assets, enjoys average profits of over $30 billion a year,
and pays its CEOs more than any other industry. But insurance companies still engage in dirty tricks and unethical behavior to boost their bottom line even  further.

The current economic turmoil affecting the insurance industry on Wall Street has only made the outlook bleaker for consumers living on Main Street. Insurance companies are likely to demand huge rate hikes and refuse more claims than ever.

Some of America's most well-known insurance companies-the same ones that spend billions on advertising to earn your trust-have endeavored to deny claims, delay payments, confuse consumers with incomprehensible nsurance-speak, and retroactively  refuse anyone who may cost them money.

This report describes some of the most egregious ways the insurance industry attempts to make money at
the expense of consumers. These are some of the tricks of the trade:

Denying Claims

Some of the nation's biggest insurance companies- Allstate, AIG, and State Farm among others-have denied valid claims in an attempt to boost their bottom lines. These companies have rewarded employees who successfully denied claims, replaced employees who would not, and when all else failed, engaged in outright fraud to avoid paying claims.

Delaying Until Death

Many insurance companies routinely delay claims, knowing full well that many policyholders will simply
give up. Some have gone so far as to lock paperwork away in safes. Undoubtedly, the most shameful use of
delay tactics has been by long-term care insurers, who often take advantage of their policyholders' age and ill
health. In the words of one regulator, "the bottom line is that insurance companies make money when they don't pay claims...They'll do anything to avoid paying, because if they wait long enough, they know the
policyholders will die."

Confusing Consumers

Insurance contracts are some of the most dense and incomprehensible contracts a consumer is ever likely to see. More than half of all states have enacted "plain English" laws for consumer contracts, yet many
Americans still do not fully understand the risks they are subject to.  After Hurricane Katrina, insurance
companies used obscure "anti-concurrent" clauses to get out of paying claims. Consumers who purchased
hurricane insurance and thought they were covered suddenly found the coverage eliminated by an obscure
clause they could not hope to understand.

Discriminating by Credit Score

Increasingly, insurance companies are using credit reports to dictate the premiums consumers pay, or
whether they can even get insurance in the first place. The practice penalizes the poor, senior citizens with little credit, and those who have suffered financial crisis through no fault of their own. Insurance companies
have denied fiscally responsible people who paid their bills in cash, but refused renewals because of a lack of
credit history. Others have seen auto rate hikes near 600 percent despite clean driving records after falling on
economic troubles.

Abandoning the Sick

Health insurers looking to cut costs have taken to canceling retroactively, or rescinding, the policies of
people whose conditions have become expensive to treat. Some insurance companies have even offered bonuses to employees who meet "cancellation goals." Rescission targets patients in the midst of treatment when they are at their most vulnerable-even cancer patients in the midst of chemotherapy have been targeted.

Canceling for a Call

Many people are rightly reluctant to make small claims on their home insurance for fear their insurance
company will raise their premiums. But few realize that insurance companies often refuse to renew a policy
because the policyholder did as little as inquire about the possibility of making a claim. Many times an
insurance company will count an inquiry over the phone as the same as a claim, and then they will do everything in their power to drop the policyholder.

READ THE FULL AAJ REPORT,  "TRICKS OF THE TRADE," TO LEARN MORE.

 

Permalink

Injured Highway Worker Settles with two defendants for $1.25 Million, then obtains an Arbitration Award for the Maximum $355,396 against Highway Department.
Posted by: Jill Bollwerk
October 17, 2008
Topic: Verdicts and Settlement

On June 30, 2004, a major highway project was being conducted on a highway between Kansas City and Springfield, Missouri.  Our client, a highway worker, was operating a concrete saw on the shoulder of the highway on that day.  Shortly after he began operating the concrete saw, a southbound vehicle driven by Mr. Hill left the roadway some distance north of the worker. The Hill vehicle continued toward the worker on the shoulder for a distance before striking the worker's concrete saw. The collision forced the heavy saw backward where it collided with our client, causing him tremendous injuries to his head, legs and arms. At the time of the collision, there were no traffic control measures in placeto protect the worker, although a traffic control plan that was approved by the highway department called for certain channelizers (barrels) and signs to be out on the road so as to keep vehicles away from the worker.  A lawsuit was brought against the driver of the vehicle that struck the worker, the general contractor on the highway project, the company that provided the traffic control devices to the project, and Missouri Highways and Transporation Commission.

The driver of the vehicle was killed, but his insurance carrier settled for the maximum amount of his insurance policy limits, $100,000, shortly after suit was filed. The case was then litigated against the other defendants very heavily for about 18 months, and then, just days before trial was to begin, two of the defendants---the sign contractor and the general contractor on the project--settled with the worker for a combined total of $1.25 million. Only Missouri Highways and Transportation remained as a defendant, and they were ordered to arbitration by the judge in the circuit court. 

A panel of three arbitrators heard the evidence against the Highway Department.  They heard about the worker's debilitating injuries--a traumatic brain injury and a foot fracture that was so severe that the foot had to be surgically fused to his leg. They heard about the worker's other serious injuries, his multiple hospital stays and surgeries, and his daily excrutiating pain. The worker's injuries make it impossible for him to work any longer.  He incurred over $350,000 in medical bills and has past and future lost wages of over $1 million.  After hearing the evidence, the arbitrators awarded the maximum amount they could award under state law against the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission--$355,396. The worker, therefore, recovered a total of  over $1.75 million as a resultof the lawsuit brought by our firm. 

Permalink

$644,000 Jury Verdict for Death from Fall down Elevator Shaft
Posted by: Jill Bollwerk
October 17, 2008
Topic: Verdicts and Settlement

Daniel Ryan and Frank Carretero recently tried a case for the wrongful death of Lin Green against Otis Elevator Company in the City of St. Louis Circuit Court.  The suit was brought by Lin's widowed husband.

Lin worked in the Masonic Temple building located on Lindell Blvd.  As she arrived for work, she saw two co-workers trying to pry open the jammed elevator door, as a shipment of water jugs was coming in that had to be taken to another floor. The maintenance man was not present, but he instructed the women who were trying to open the elevator on how to pry open the doors. There was a rod that needed to be inserted into a hole in the elevator door which would make the door pop open. The ladies followed the maintenance worker's instructions and were able to get one of the two elevator doors opened.  However, when the door opened, they observed that the floor of the cab was not even with the floor outside the elevator, so Lin and the two other employees tried to pry open the other elevator door.  Sadly, when the door opened, the cab of the elevator was actually on the floor above.  Lin lost her balance, and she fell down the elevator shaft to her death. 

Mr. Ryan contended that the elevator should have been equipped with a parking brake that would have prevented the door from being opened if the cab wasn't even with the floor.  Attorneys for Otis Elevator argued that the brake had been installed, but some unidentified person had removed it. Ultimately, the jury found for Lin Green and awarded her widower $644,000 for her death.  

Permalink

Are you Eligible for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy?
Posted by: Jill Bollwerk
October 14, 2008
Topic: Our Troubled Economy

  

Chapter 13 is a good option for some debtors, but not everyone is eligible to file for Chapter 13.  Check out the article on our website regarding Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.   

 

 

Permalink

Missouri's Graduated Driver's License Law
Posted by: Jill Bollwerk
October 14, 2008
Topic: Missouri's Law for Teen Drivers

Well, that day finally came--my oldest child just turned 16! To a parent, that birthday can be the most liberating, yet most frightening, birthday that you will experience with your child. On the one hand, it is liberating that your child can now drive herself to soccer practice or to the movies, and your carpool duties have diminished. On the other hand, it is frightening every time she gets into the car, and you worry that she may suffer the effects of her inexperience and be involved in a terrible accident.

When I was a child, kids could get their permits at 15 1/2 and get a full driver's license at 16. There were no requirements as to the number of hours you drove before you could get your license. If you passed the driver's test, you were licensed. Well, that's not the case anymore. Missouri recently changed the rules for kids under the age of 18, passing the Missouri Graduated Drivers License Law.

If you have a teenager who is approaching driving age, you need to familiar yourself with the law. Don't rely on your teenager to tell you what the law says--he or she can be very wrong! For instance, one section of the law states that a 16-year-old cannot drive with more than one unrelated person for the first six months of having his or her driver's license. Well, my daughter came home from school one day and proceeded to tell me, her "lawyer-mom," that a police officer came to school and told the kids that this law did not apply if they were driving their school carpool (of course, this statement was made when my daughter was lobbying to drive the school carpool!). Much to her dismay, "lawyer-mom" pulled out the law and showed her that there is no such exception for carpoolers in the law, and she better pray that if she drives more than one unrelated individual before she has had her license for six months, that the officer who came to her class is the one who pulls her over! Now, I don't doubt that the nice officer might have said that he is not going to enforce the law if he sees a carpool driving to school, but that doesn't mean she isn't breaking the law if she is doing it!

The principal feature of the law is the intermediate driver's license, which covers drivers between the ages of 16 and 18. In order to obtain an intermediate license, a driver must:

•Have their instruction permit for at least six months;

•Have no traffic convictions for six months, and no alcohol-related offenses for 12 months; and

•Have at least 40 hours, including 10 nighttime hours, behind the wheel.

After the driver has fulfilled the above requirements, an intermediate license can be issued if the teen passes the driver's exam. The important features of the intermediate license are as follows:

•For the first 6 months, the teen may not drive with more than one passenger who is under 19 years old and who is not a member of the teen's immediate family;

•After the first 6 months, the teen may not drive with more than three passengers who are under 19 years old and who are not members of the teen's immediate family; and

•The teen may not drive alone between 1:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. except to and from a school activity, job, or for an emergency, unless accompanied by a licensed driver 21 years old or older.

If you have further questions, follow this link to the Missouri Department of Revenue's Frequently Asked Questions --Graduated Driver's

Permalink

An Example of an ERISA Reimbursement Travesty
Posted by: Jill Bollwerk
January 17, 2008
Topic: ERISA Reimbursement Claims

You are injured in an auto accident because some jerk rear-ended you. You break your leg. You get emergency treatment and you see an orthopedic surgeon who puts a pin in your femur. You have physical therapy and miss a month of work. Your health insurance, which is provided to you by your employer, picks up your bills. You decide to sue the idiot who rear-ended you. The man only has $25,000 in auto liability insurance, and his insurance company offers to pay you the policy limits of $25,000. However, this amount doesn't even cover your medical expenses. But, what can you do.....the man who hit you lives in an apartment, has a beat-up old car and is unemployed, so suing him for more than his insurance policy is pointless. You decide to settle with the insurance company for the $25,000.

A month after you settle, you get a letter from your health insurance company, telling you that they are demanding that you repay them for the medical expenses they paid on your behalf. They paid $30,000, but because you only received $25,000, they are demanding $25,000. You think to yourself--this is crazy! I pay for part of my health insurance premiums every month--why do they get to take everything I received from the responsible person? Don't I get to keep my lost wages? Don't I get something for my pain and suffering? Don't they have to pay my attorney? The answer to these questions just might be "no!"

Yes, it seems completely unfair, but the fact of the matter is this. If your employer provides insurance coverage to you as a benefit, that health insurance plan is likely to be a plan set up under a federal law known commonly as "ERISA." Under this federal law, it is permissible for a health insurance carrier to put language in their plan allowing them to seek reimbursement from you for amounts they paid on your behalf due to someone else's negligence. Seems unfair, but that's the law.

A colleague of mine alerted me to a news story that will pull at your heartstrings and will show you just how devastating the effects of an ERISA repayment claim can be on someone who has been injured due to the fault of another person. The case is out of Minnesota. Take a look for yourself, the sad story of Tom Cary.

Permalink

Interesting News Story on Social Security
Posted by: Jill Bollwerk
January 17, 2008
Topic: The Social Security Administration Backlog

The serious backlog at the Social Security Administration has been brought to the forefront by the media in recent months. Take a look at this CBS Evening News report on the problem, which aired on January 15, 2008.

 

Permalink