San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

Choosing a Law Firm for Your Small Business Needs

June 5, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

The team at the Brod Law Firm is proud to serve our local business community. As a law firm for small businesses in San Francisco, we know that selecting legal representation is an important decision. Many Northern California small business owners wonder whether a small firm can represent their company as well as a large firm with offices nationwide. We firmly believe that a small law firm is the best option when seeking representation for your company. Here are some reasons:

No Minimum Hour Commitment

Some law firms will only accept business clients that guarantee a certain level of legal fees annually. At The Brod Law Firm, we have no such policy. Likewise, large firms may focus their attention on larger-scale clients that are more likely to have frequent legal needs while treating smaller companies as second-class. We value our small business clients and give every business we work with the highest caliber service, regardless of how frequently they need our services. Small business clients are a priority, not an afterthought.

Do You Need to Document Your Accident With a Police Report?

June 4, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Chances are that you or someone you know was the victim of theft or involved in a car accident, but did not file a police report. Many find that waiting for the police to arrive and completing the report to be a cumbersome process and would rather heave a sigh of resignation and move on with their day. However, it may be worth the time to file a police report if you want to support your claim to your insurance company. Moreover, a police report could also come in handy during the investigation process if you have a personal injury claim against the other driver, even if it may be inadmissible in civil court due to hearsay rules.

In the case of an accident, a police officer will usually document the date and time of the accident, weather and lighting conditions, road signs/signals, and any other physical or circumstantial evidence that appears relevant to the officer. The officer may also document the name and contact information of known witnesses and take pictures of the scene of the accident, including damage to property. It will also indicate whether anyone was injured and whether emergency services were called to the scene. The police officer will assess the evidence and testimony of those involved and may explain in the report who the officer believes to be at fault.

It is advisable to compose yourself before you report your version of the facts, remembering that the police officer is documenting what you say. If you have a camera available you may also want to take photos of the scene and of property damage and injuries.

For insurance purposes, a police report could be crucial to documenting liability and property damage. Some insurance companies may even require a police report be filed after the fact if one was not completed initially. If you suffered injuries and pursue a personal injury claim, you will want to provide a copy of the police report to your car accident attorney. The police report itself will probably not be submitted into evidence but the information available in the report is a good jumping off point for investigation. Your attorney may use the police report to locate witnesses, as well as the officer who wrote the report. It will also have contact information for the other driver’s insurance policy. Initially, the report may alert your attorney to significant factors that had bearing on the accident. Your attorney may use the report later to bolster your position in negotiations with the opposing party. Finally, your attorney may hire an accident reconstruction expert who can use the report as a starting point for recreating the circumstances of your accident.
Continue Reading ›

Exposure to Lead from Consumer Products is Not a Thing of the Past

June 1, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Since 1986, Proposition 65 requires that businesses with more than ten employees give clear and reasonable warning before knowingly exposing Californians to toxic chemicals. In the last five years, lead has been found in numerous products by non-profit testing centers. The California Attorney General has filed multiple lawsuits against high profile companies for notice violations and for exposing consumers to levels of lead that exceed federal standards.

For example, in 2008 the Attorney General and the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) filed suit against two of the largest manufacturers of artificial turf: FieldTurf USA, Inc. and Beaulieu. The CEH found instances of artificial turf fields that were installed before 2004 that had high levels of lead. The lead is found with the plastics that help keep the turf’s color bright. list of synthetic turf fields that it has tested for excessive lead levels, including three in Alameda County and one in San Mateo County.

In August 2010, the California Attorney General filed a lawsuit against multiple bounce house companies that failed to warn consumers of high levels of lead found in the vinyl with which the house were made. Once again the lead helped to keep the vibrant colored inflatable houses bright. The manufacturer of the vinyl had labeled it as lead free, yet when tested lead was found at high levels. Two of the biggest inflatable bounce house companies, Ninja Jump and eInflatable, agreed in a settlement to better monitor for toxics present in their product.

California Eyes Legislation to Protect Businesses From Abusive ADA Suits

June 1, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Small businesses are the backbone of America. As a law firm for small businesses in San Francisco, Oakland, and Sacramento, it is our job to stay informed about issues that matter to area business owners. While it is absolutely important to maintain accessible workplaces, abusive lawsuits under the Americans With Disability Act (“ADA”) are far too common. Unmeritorious ADA claims against a small business in Northern California are vexing to companies and also devalue legitimate, valid claims under the act.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the State Senate has unanimously passed a bill aimed at reducing predatory ADA claims. SB1186 is being co-sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and State Senator Bob Dutton who represents San Bernardino County. The bill would do three things: 1) Ban “drive-by” plaintiffs from sending letters demanding a dollar amount from a small business to settle an alleged ADA claim; 2) For claimants alleging a construction-related accessibility violation, require written notice a minimum of thirty days prior to filing suit; and 3) Require commercial landlords to notify small-business tenants whether a building has received state-certification of ADA compliance.

Steinberg suggests that the current bill is only a starting point. He notes that the bill does not fully address the hundreds of false ADA claims filed against California businesses, suggesting that such claims that undermine the value of the federal legislation. ADA claims remain high. According to reports, six businesses on San Francisco’s Grant Avenue were hit by ADA lawsuits in last month.

California Bill on Insurance Anti-Fraud Measures

June 1, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Our San Francisco insurance attorneys keep a close eye on all facets of California insurance law. For example, yesterday, the California Assembly passed AB 2138, which increased assessments to health and disability insurers to enable them to have more funds to fight insurance fraud. It would increase the annual assessment from its current rate at 10 cents per insured person up to 20 cents per insured person. This money will particularly be used to help local district attorneys around California prosecute insurance fraud, because at the moment most localities do not have enough money to prosecute nearly as many cases as they would like. It is especially a problem when local governments are as cash-strapped as they are now.

The impetus for this legislation was a 2008 report by CDI’s Advisory Task Force on Insurance Fraud, which found insufficient policy assessments to fund a state-wide anti-fraud effort and recommended the increase included in AB 2138.

This bill was sponsored by the California Department of Insurance and it’s Commissioner Dave Jones. Department records show that between 2007 and 2010, CDI received more than 6,000 health and disability fraudulent claims but only a very small number of the 6,000 were referred to district attorneys. Only 656 investigations took place, resulting in 221 arrests and 184 convictions with an average annual chargeable fraud of $223 million.

Understanding Blood Alcohol Content in the Aftermath of a Fatal Single-Car Crash in Berkley

May 30, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

As your Oakland personal injury law firm, our team is all too familiar with the tragedy that can result when someone chooses to get behind the wheel after consuming alcohol. Too many drunk driving accidents in Oakland and surrounding regions result in the tragic injury or lead to innocent lives being cut short.

According to The Oakland Tribune, six year old Xavier Chevez passed away on Friday after spending a week in a coma following a car accident that claimed his mother’s life in the early hours of May 18. Investigators report that Berkley resident Jose Lumbreras, age twenty-four, was traveling at a speed of approximately sixty-five miles despite being on a quiet residential road. At about 1:15 A.M., the Cadillac driven by Lumbreras on California Street became airborne, hitting a tree and landing about twenty yards away on the opposite side of the traffic circle at Allston Way. No skid marks were found in the vicinity, suggesting Lumbreras had not attempted to slow down prior to hitting the circle’s concrete curb. Milanca Lopez, mother to Xavier and girlfriend to Lumbreras, was a passenger and died at the scene. Investigators report that Ms. Lopez had not been wearing a seatbelt. Her son, who was riding in the back seat and was wearing his seatbelt but was not in a booster seat (see our prior post about the new law requiring booster seats for children under eight years of age). Lumbreras also suffered severe injuries and remains hospitalized. Police report he had a blood alcohol count of .219, two and a half times greater than California’s 0.08 legal limit. Six felony charges have been filed in the case, including gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. It is not clear if Xavier’s death will result in further charges.

Reports about drunk driving accidents often make reference to the driver’s blood alcohol count (“BAC”). BAC measures the concentration of alcohol in an individual’s blood, expressing the level as a percentage reflecting grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. Factors including size, muscle mass, food intake, and hydration influence BAC and result in individuals having different BACs despite consuming the same amount of alcohol. Due to differences in body compensation, women will usually have a higher BAC than men who consume the same amount of alcohol. As BAC levels rise, the effects of alcohol increase. A low level BAC can result in reduced inhibition and limited concentration. At a BAC of 0.08, the legal limit for driving in California, an individual may experience loss of muscle coordination and impaired judgment skills. Higher BAC levels can worsen these effects, progressively lowering reaction times and diminishing reasoning abilities. Loss of consciousness can occur around or above a 0.20 BAC, with death possible at 0.30 and a near certainty at 0.50. While myths abound about “sobering up” with a cold shower or cup of coffee, only time can truly lower an increased BAC level.

Federal Lawsuit Claims Illnesses Due to Toxins at Prison-Bureau-Run Electronics Recycling Plant

May 28, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

The San Francisco chemical exposure lawyer at The Brod Law Firm represents people harmed due to exposure to dangerous substances throughout Northern California. In order to best serve our clients, our team keeps informed about toxic chemical lawsuits in California and also throughout the nation.

One interesting lawsuit that may have implications locally is currently pending in Northern Florida. Current and former employees and their family members are claiming that they have suffered serious health consequences from exposure to toxins at the electronic waste recycling facility at the Marianna Federal Corrections Institution, a medium security facility located sixty-five miles west of Tallahassee. More than 160 individuals have joined the case filed against the federal prison agency, citing health problems including joint pain, sores, memory decline, internal bleeding and problems in the respiratory, thyroid, and reproductive systems. The complaint places the blame on toxins such as beryllium, lead, and cadmium that were in the air at the plant and often appeared as a pollen-like dust on employee’s clothing. Complainants assert that they were not provided with any protective apparel to limit exposure to the toxins. Current and former inmates who claim to have suffered similar illnesses due to exposure at the plant are not part of the current lawsuits because a separate, complex federal process governs claims by prisoners.

Beginning in 1994, the Federal Bureau of Prisons started a program using low-paid inmate labor in plants that recycled computers and other electronic equipment. These recycling plants would extract useful materials, including gold, from the waste products. Worker duties included using hammers to break open television picture tubes and glass computer screens that contained toxic materials. The program began with the Marianna facility but expanded in the next three years to include facilities in seven other states, including here in California.

Man and His Wife Awarded $11.4 Million for Injury on the Job Caused by Defective Hub

May 25, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Back%20wheel.jpg Most people who are injured on the job look to worker’s compensation to support them while they are unable to work. In some cases there may be another option as well. Raymond Mariolle, a garbage collector for Waste Management, sued the manufacturer of the truck he used at work for product liability and won to the tune of $11.4 million.

In 2007, the front tire of the garbage truck Raymond Mariolle was using during his rounds came off due to a defective hub assembly. The hub houses the wheel bearing, which supports the weight of the vehicle. Worn down or defective bearings may allow the wheel to become loose and vibrate. The wheel on Mariolle’s garbage truck loosened and came off as a result of the defective hub assembly and Mariolle suffered a compression injury to his spine, which ultimately made him permanently disabled. According to the Contra Costa Times, the manufacturer of the hubs, Consolidated Metco, Inc. realized that some 15,000-25,000 defective hubs were being used on large service trucks as early as 2004, but they never noticed the truck owners. The hubs had the propensity to break under loads they should have been able to carry.

Because a third party contributed to his workplace injury, Mariolle sued the manufacturers involved with the production of the garbage trucks used by Waste Management. Products liability, such as in the above case, is one of the most common personal injury claims for injuries that occur on the job. The Contra Costa Times reported that the $11.4 million that the U.S. District Court jury awarded Mariolle breaks down as $2.4 million for past and future medical expenses and lost earning capacity, $7.5 million for pain and suffering, and $1.5 million for Mariolle’s wife for loss of consortium. The high award in this case is consistent with the findings of research on the topic. A study by RAND found that product liability cases are harder to win than auto accident cases, but that the awards tend to be much higher. The paper Putting a Price on Pain-and-Suffering Damages from the Northwestern University Law Review cites a study that found (logically) the more serious and permanent an injury is, the higher the award. In many personal injury cases pain and suffering can add up to around 50% of the total award for damages. In Mariolle’s case, pain and suffering constituted about 66% of the total award.

It is important to search out a lawyer who understands how juries monetize non-economic damages in injury cases in order to obtain a higher award according to the client’s circumstances.
Continue Reading ›

Record Jury Award Against State Farm for Car Accident Victim

May 25, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

car%20accident.jpg As San Francisco insurance attorneys, we know that insurance companies stalling and not wanting to pay out benefits to customers is a Far too frequent occurrence. Sometimes the only option is to use the courts to seek redress and force insurance companies to do what they should have done in the first place.

Our insurance attorneys were very interested to see the resolution of Ciara Vollaro’s case last week. The judgment was issued on Wednesday May 16th in Los Angeles. Ms. Vollaro was involved in a car accident in 2007. She was a passenger in a car that was rear-ended by another car driven by Maureen Lipsi. Ms. Lipsi is insured by State Farm Insurance. But for five long years State Farm refused to resolve the matter. They caused a series of delays and then finally forced the trial to start by offering the plaintiff only $29,000, which was far too low for the serious injuries she suffered and the harm caused by the substantial delay in payment. State Farm continued to contest liability and question Ms. Vollaro’s injuries from the crash.

Thankfully, the jury at the Los Angeles Superior Court saw through State Farm’s unfair tactics. The jury found for Ms. Vollaro and awarded her more than $100,000 to compensate for her injuries. In addition, the jury thought State Farm’s actions had been particularly egregious, leading them to award her a further $500,000 for pain and suffering. It is believed to be the highest jury award of its kind in California. The lawyers involved in this case called it a victory against “Goliath” and called it a victory for the American justice system. They also hailed it as an important reminder to victims of this kind of insurance company abuse that they have legal rights to fight back. It sends a message that if a victim stands up for him or herself against an insurance company, they can get justice.

San Francisco Law Firm Reminds Residents and Visitors to Be Safe During the Holiday Weekend

May 25, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Memorial Day is an opportunity to remember the men and women who gave their lives protecting our country and serving in the various branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. The holiday dates back to the post-Civil War era when it was known as Declaration Day. The day has been celebrated more broadly only since taking its current name in 1967 and being specified as a Monday observance the following year. Our San Francisco personal injury law firm expresses our gratitude to the men and women who have served and given their lives in order to protect our nation.

For many, Memorial Day is also the unofficial start to the summer season. As our San Francisco accident lawyer knows, it is also a holiday marked by long weekend getaways and congested highway traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle cites a report from AAA Northern California that estimates approximately 4.2 million Californians plan to travel more than fifty miles for weekend festivities. This estimate marks an increase of 1.5 percent from the 2011 figure. The majority of these travelers, a projected 3.5 million, will travel by road this weekend, an increase of about 1.6 percent. Fewer Californians are expected to travel by air than in 2011, with projections estimating 390,000 state residents will use planes for holiday getaways, a decrease of 5.2%.

While it is always an important consideration, holiday traffic makes safe driving in San Francisco even more crucial. Holiday observances will also result in some closures during the weekend. As has been the case for several toll bridges on recent holiday weekends, the Dumbaraton Bridge will be closed. The closure is in effect from 10 P.M. on Friday until 5 A.M. on Tuesday. Crews will be working to replace a seismic joint on the span that will allow eighteen additional inches of movement in case of an earthquake and will raise the bridge five inches to make room for the addition of ninety-six seismic bearings in the upcoming eight months.