Justia Lawyer Rating
badge - Top 100 Trial Lawyers, The National Trial Lawyers
badge - Lead Counsel Rated
badge - Avvo Rating 10, Gregory J. Brod, Top attorney
badge - American Bar Association
badge - Member of San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association
badge - Super Lawyers

Among the new laws passed in 2011 is a new California insurance law, SB 946, which aims to complement existing law that requires equal coverage of mental health conditions and medical conditions. The Mental Health Parity Law and a settlement agreement reached by insurance companies and the California Department of Managed Health Care provide for insurance coverage of mental health conditions, including the full spectrum of autism. Insurance companies must provide equal mental health coverage and maximum lifetime benefits at the same rates as medical coverage.

Existing regulations required that all treatment be provided by licensed professionals, such as psychologists, registered nurses, and social workers. However, this language excluded certified providers of “applied behavior analysis” (ABA,) a prevalent strategy meant to improve behavior and quality of life for families with autistic children. The distinction between a licensed profession and a certified one is made by how the profession is regulated. Licensed professions are regulated by the state while certified professions are regulated by non-governmental entities.

The new law has a great impact on families with autistic children attempting to obtain health insurance and make claims to pay for behavioral treatments. It requires insurance companies to cover mental health treatment such as applied behavior analysis as long as it is prescribed by a licensed professional. The mental health treatment itself may be carried out by professionals who are not regulated specifically by the State of California.

The California Association of Health Plans opposed the bill, stating an industry study that the bill would effectively raise insurance costs by $850 million. A similar study carried out by the California Health Review found that it would raise insurance costs by about $93 million and lower the costs of special education and social services, paid for by the taxpayer, by about $140 million.

Families affected by the bill should take some exceptions to coverage into consideration. Insurance plans provided by federal and state governments, such as ERISA, CalPERS, Medicare, and Medi-Cal, are excluded from the law’s requirements. Those plans have their own requirements regarding mental healthcare. Also, plans that are considered “self-funded” or paid for by an employer who did not purchase a fully funded plan from a third party are excepted from the bill’s regulations. It is difficult for insured employees to tell the difference and should call their employer’s human resources department to inquire.

Moreover, the bill is effective July 1, 2012, but it sunsets on July 1, 2014 only two years later. The federal healthcare plan is set to take effect at that time and SB 946 will have to be re-evaluated to comply with federal law. Therefore, families should look closely for deadlines and news updates to determine future pay outs for mental healthcare. In the meantime, Autism Speaks, a prominent autism advocacy organization, recommends that persons harmed by insurance companies violating this or other insurance laws contact an attorney to see if legal action is appropriate.

Besides the laws already mentioned, insurance companies doing business in California must adhere to the California Insurance Code. Insurance companies may not engage in tactics meant to delay payment or offer to pay out low amounts on claims in bad faith. Additionally, they must communicate promptly with the insured regarding their claims. The insurance company must tell you why they denied your claim.
Continue Reading ›

treecrash.pngA story in The Oakland Tribune serves as a disheartening reminder that DUI dangers do not disappear after the holiday season fades away and that Oakland motor vehicle accident fatalities will remain a reality in 2012. As a law firm for Oakland DUI victims, we are saddened by every accident but we are proud to be able to help victims and their families in the aftermath of these tragedies.

Salvador Espino, a fifty-five year old from San Jose, has been arrested and is facing charges of driving under the influence, vehicular manslaughter, and other related violations. Reports indicate that he was driving a 2007 Dodge Caravan erratically, pinballing between the center median and shoulder, while reaching speeds over ninety miles per hour. Espino was driving in the northbound lanes of I-680 between Milpitas and Fremont and, in the area of Scott Creek Road, his vehicle struck two cars before veering off the road and slamming into two trees. The impact was strong enough to shear the right side off of the minivan and topple one of the trees. Espino was not seriously harmed but his passenger, another fifty-five year old man from San Jose, was killed and pronounced dead at the crash scene. The driver was arrested, booked, and taken to Santa Rita Jail on suspicion of numerous counts including an alcohol-related charge.

As Oakland wrongful death lawyers, we recognize that the law cannot bring back a victim who is killed in a senseless auto accident. We advocate for prevention and education because a post-accident lawsuit is always an imperfect remedy. Nonetheless, we believe that it is important for families who have lost a loved one to reach out to experienced legal counsel to discuss their legal rights.

On October 5, 2011 California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Assembly Bill No. 25

which requires that schools with elective sports programs pay closer attention to concussions. The bill exhorts school personnel to sit out players with a suspected concussion. The athletes are not allowed to return to play without written clearance by a licensed medical provider.

The passage of Assembly Bill No. 25 follows the well-covered deaths of high school students Jaquan Waller in September of 2008 and of Ryne Dougherty in October of the same year. Each player died after they were returned to play too soon after suffering a concussion.

Concussions are caused by a sudden blow which moves the brain rapidly inside the skull. The arteries in the brain constrict, reducing blood flow. Concussions slow reaction time and decrease coordination, significantly increasing the chances of a second concussion if an athlete is not allowed to fully recover. A second impact may cause the brain to swell and puts the concussed person at risk for cerebral bleeding and fatal brain stem failure. A second concussion that occurs before the first is healed is known as second impact syndrome.

Symptoms of concussion include dizziness, disorientation, nausea, headaches, cognitive difficulties, and changes in sleep patterns. The majority of concussions are classified as mild and 90% of concussions sufferers do not lose consciousness. Since the common symptoms of concussions are not obviously physical signs, concussions are difficult to identify.

The bill’s requirements aim to protect students eighteen years old and under because they are susceptible to more frequent and more severe concussions than older athletes as their brains are still in the development stage. Concussions may have serious negative effects on students’ academic abilities and on their physical well-being. It is irresponsible of schools to allow students to return to play based on whether they feel well enough, as students desire to play and the pressure to perform causes them to lie about symptoms. Some schools have implemented concussion management programs to determine if a student athlete has suffered a concussion. Initial tests include analytical and memory questions asked of a student who has a suspected concussion, as well as a physical assessment to determine reaction times and coordination.

Schools and families should also be aware that football is not the only sport that has a high risk of concussions. Girls who play soccer actually suffer higher rates of concussion than helmet-bearing football players. Men and women’s lacrosse also see high rates of concussion injuries.

California schools now have a duty by law to immediately take players of elective sports out of the game with suspected brain injuries until a doctor deems them fully recovered. Schools that deviate from this duty and do not identify high risk students and look out for possible concussions are exposing themselves to allegations of negligence and possible lawsuits. Furthermore, coaches or athletic trainers that feel the pressure to return athletes too early to play in key games may stunt the recovery of the athlete and create a liability for the school. For instance in New Jersey, where a similar law exists, La Salle University settled with the family of Preston Plevretes for $7.5 million dollars after he suffered second impact syndrome.

Photo credit: kconnors from morguefile.com
Continue Reading ›

teddy.pngWhile nothing can ever undo the harm caused by child molester, our San Francisco abuse lawyer is always gratified to see justice served and evil punished. The recent sentencing of a San Francisco child molester reminds us that the criminal justice system can work to penalize those who violate the law and the standards of common decency. This case also serves as an opportunity to remind residents that our dual legal system provides both the opportunity to punish offenders and the opportunity for victims to recover monetary damages for the harm done. The wrong cannot be undone but the system can provide compensation to help victims move forward after an egregious harm.

On Sunday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on the sentencing of a repeat child molester. The investigation against Julius Lewis began in 2006 when a six year-old girl, a friend of Lewis’s daughter, reported that she had been molested by Lewis. In addition to charges related to that victim, the case included charges that Lewis molested his step-daughter beginning in 1989. Some of the acts occurred during the time Lewis lived in Texas and had also served a prison sentence there for indecency with a child. Lewis was convicted in September on five counts of lewd acts with a minor and was sentenced this past Friday to twenty-nine years in prison.

It is important to remember that our judicial system has separate and distinct courts for civil and criminal charges. A conviction in criminal court represents official authorities imposing punishment on a wrongdoer for violating the law. The civil system, in contrast, focuses on redressing the wrong done to a victim. An abuse victim in San Francisco can bring a civil suit regardless of whether criminal charges are successful and even if no criminal case is filed. Criminal convictions can be a huge psychological win for a victim but only a civil suit can help them recover damages for their experience. While no amount of money can undo the acts, it can help the victim access resources to help them recover from the emotional and physical trauma. A civil victory can also allow the victim to feel truly heard.

The product Brazilian Blowout has gained popularity in salons as a smoothing hair treatment. However, in August 2011, the Federal Drug Administration issued a warning letter to Mike Brady, CEO of Brazilian Blowout for having excessive amounts of formaldehyde in the Brazilian Blowout hair treatment. Furthermore, the warning letter admonishes Brazilian Blowout for misbranding its product label by declaring the hair product as “Formaldehyde Free”. The Federal Drug Administration found unsafe levels of formaldehyde when it tested samples of Brazilian Blowout. The tests of Brazilian Blowout confirmed the presence of methylene glycol, the liquid form of formaldehyde, at levels ranging from 8.7 to 10.4%.

The FDA warning letter prompted the Federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) to conduct its own investigation into formaldehyde exposure from the hair treatment. It took samples of formaldehyde levels at multiple salons while the hair treatment was being used and found that they exceeded safe levels, which OSHA defines for a fifteen minute time period as less than 2.0 parts of formaldehyde per million parts of air (ppm). In one test, the level of formaldehyde was 4.ppm and in another it was 10.12 ppm. In addition, at the state level Cal OSHA is conducting local investigations into complaints by salon workers who suffered injury as a result of using misbranded hair smoothing treatments. California regulations prohibit formaldehyde levels to exceed an average .75 ppm over an eight hour period. OSHA has released multiple hazard alerts for Brazilian Blowout, most recently of December 8, 2011.

Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that can irritate skin, cause respiratory problems, blurry vision, and headaches, among other symptoms. Salon workers are most at risk and may inhale formaldehyde when it is released into the air during the application of heat to the product. Physical contact with the product itself can also lead to exposure. OSHA recommends that salon workers wear gloves while handling the product. It also advises that air ventilators be installed in salons that provide hair smoothing treatments as many contain various forms of formaldehyde.

The California Attorney General’s Office filed a lawsuit against Brazilian Blowout on November 5, 2010 for violating Proposition 65 which requires that products which contain ingredients known to cause cancer to be labeled accordingly. The Attorney General also alleges that Brazilian Blowout engages in deceptive advertising practices by labeling its product as “Formaldehyde Free”. The lawsuit is ongoing.
Continue Reading ›

Serving as a law firm for Oakland auto accident victims, the Brod Law Firmour team is keenly aware of the dangers of drunk driving in Oakland and throughout Northern California. We have seen too many innocent residents injured by a driver who chose to ignore the law and show disregard for safety by getting behind the wheel of a car after consuming alcohol. While we are proud to serve victims, we are saddened by every needless accident. Despite police crackdowns and education campaigns, drunk driving remains all too common.

wing.pngGiven their frequency, DUI incidents don’t always make the news but The Oakland Tribune reported this week on an unusual twist on the mix of alcohol and vehicle operation – drunk flying. The air operations division of the California Highway Patrol noticed a small plane flying erratically during the afternoon hours of Tuesday January 2, 2012. In violation of federal aviation regulations, the plane flew as low as 50 feet from the ground and a mere 100 feet from highway traffic. The CHP used the plane’s tail numbers to identify the plane which was registered in Pennsgrove. When the pilot landed at the Petaluma Municipal Airport, authorities approached and immediately noted the smell of alcohol on the sixty-two year old pilot’s breath. After administering field sobriety tests, the CHP arrested the pilot on suspicion of flying while intoxicated.

The Federal Aviation Administration reports a significant increase in serious pilot errors when the pilot’s blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) is above 0.04% and a decline in flying skill with levels as low as 0.025%. This is significantly lower than the 0.08% BAC level that constitutes a DUI for a California driver. In recognition of the risks posed by an incapacitated pilot, federal regulations prohibit flying within eight hours of alcohol consumption or when the pilot has a BAC above 0.04%. The FAA recommends even greater caution, suggesting that pilots refrain from drinking alcohol for twenty-four hours prior to takeoff. FAA material also caution that hangover symptoms can significantly impair skills even if the pilot’s BAC has returned to a legal range.

medmal.pngAn annual California Employer Health Benefits Survey came out this week with bleak news for California insurance consumers. It polled 770 benefit managers at private companies in the state from July to October 2011. The bottom line of the survey was that fewer companies offered health insurance in 2011 and those that did charged more for it. Those of us who practice insurance law in California are naturally concerned about these newly released statistics and what further impact the numbers could have as the health insurance market feels pressure from the economic downturn.

In California, 63 percent of workers have employer-sponsored health insurance, down from 73 percent two years ago. And premiums for these health plans rose by an astonishing 153.5 percent since 2002, more than five times California’s inflation rate for the same period. About 25 percent of employers either reduced benefits or raised costs on employees in 2011. A large part of this is due to the economic downturn of the last few years coupled with steadily rising costs. And there is no end to this trend in 2012 as 36 percent of California employers stated they are either somewhat or very likely to increase the amount employees pay this year. This upward trend in costs has been present for several decades, but the dramatic upturn in the numbers in this most recent survey are still striking even to experienced San Francisco insurance lawyers.

The numbers are especially alarming considering consumers are getting fewer benefits for their money, as well. The insurance benefits decreased at the same time as co-pays, deductibles, and premiums rose dramatically in cost for the employee-consumers. And employers are paying more than average in California, as well. They contribute, on average, $5,000 per single employee and nearly $12,000 a year for family coverage.

2012 opened with great results in the stock market, with the Dow gaining 180 points on the first trading day of the new year. Reporting on the strong opening on Wall Street, The San Francisco Chronicle noted that January results can be a strong indicator for the year to come. Although the exchange numbers focus on some of our nation’s largest corporations, the gains were spread across a range of business areas. Our San Francisco small business attorney at The Brod Law Firm is hopeful that this is a sign that 2012 will be a strong year for companies of all sizes. We welcome the chance to be the law firm for local business in San Francisco and throughout Northern California in 2012.

Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our country. There are approximately 3.4 million small businesses in California and statistics suggest they account for fifty-two percent of our state’s private sector employment. In the period between 1993 and 2008, small businesses accounted for sixty-four percent of the net new jobs nationwide.

As a San Francisco small business law firm, we believe in representing the interests of our local business owners and managers. We can provide the legal support your business needs when you are drafting contracts or negotiating other key business documents. Our experience with business disputes provides us with a specialized perspective. We can apply our experience to help our clients prevent future legal disputes with carefully drafted contracts that anticipate and avoid the pitfalls that can befall well-meaning business owners.

car%20crash.jpgThe State of California requires drivers to carry insurance at all times. Many drivers assume that carrying the minimum insurance required should cover damage done to their car in most instances. However, this is not the case. California Insurance Code Section 11580.1b only requires that drivers buy liability insurance that provides at least $15,000 in coverage for injury or death to one person, $30,000 in coverage for injury or death to more than one person, and $5,000 in coverage for property damage. This type of insurance coverage pays medical expenses and vehicle repair costs to the other driver, if the insured is at fault. Therefore, if you find yourself the victim of a hit and run accident, the minimum amount of insurance would not cover any of your costs.

25% of California motorists are driving without insurance. Drivers who carry only liability insurance are not covered in the case of an accident with an uninsured motorist and must pay for medical bills and for repairs to damaged property out of pocket. In California, a hit and run accident where the driver is unidentified is treated by insurance companies as if it were an accident with an uninsured motorist. According to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 11% of accidents are hit and run accidents nationwide. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration puts the number of hit and run accidents in California specifically at 18% of crashes.

There are optional types of coverage that will pay for some or all of the expenses of a victim of a hit and run crash. First, collision coverage will cover damage sustained by the insured’s car, regardless of who is at fault, including hit and run drivers. However, this type of insurance requires the insured to pay a deductible out of pocket and is more expensive than other types of insurance. In addition, a claim to the insurance company may affect the policy holder’s future insurance rate, regardless of who is at fault. A driver would need to take out an additional personal injury policy in order to be covered for medical expenses in the event of a hit and run accident.

Insurance companies in California are also required to offer uninsured motorists coverage. This type of insurance covers the medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering of policy holders who suffer injuries as a result of an accident with an uninsured driver, including hit and run motorists. Additionally, drivers may choose to carry uninsured motorist property damage coverage for damage to their car. Uninsured motorist property damage insurance is advisable as 80% of hit and run accident involve only damage to vehicles. There is no deductible for this type of coverage, however there may be limits placed on the amount paid out.

If you are the victim of a hit and run accident, whether the driver is identifiable or not, it is recommended that you file a police report. You may have to complete a walk-in report at the police department, as some patrols will respond to the accident site, especially if the accident occurred on private property like a grocery store parking lot. A police report is important documentation of your claim and may be required to pursue a claim with your insurance company if you do have collision or uninsured motorists insurance.
Continue Reading ›

With the arrival of 2012, our Sacramento automobile accident law firm welcomes the continued efforts of our state legislature to ensure the safety of our youngest residents. Among a number of laws that became effective when the calendar turned to January is a provision expanding the coverage of California car seat laws. Under the new legislation, children riding in cars in our state must be restrained in a properly installed booster seat until age eight. The law does make an exception for children under age eight who are taller than four feet nine inches. This is a significant change from the prior statue which required child restraints only until age six or until the child reached sixty pounds.

seatbelt.pngAs car accident lawyers for Sacramento and all of Northern California, our team at The Brod Law Firm has seen too many children’s lives impacted or even tragically ended by a car crash. Passengers not only rely on the safety of the person driving their vehicle but also on the responsibility and attentiveness of every other driver on the road. Proper seatbelt use is essential for all passengers, but especially for children whose small size and still maturing bodies make them particularly vulnerable. According to the California Department of Public Health, injuries in automobile accidents are among the top five causes of hospitalization and death in individuals under age sixteen. A study by the Center for Disease Control found that 179,000 children were injured in car accidents nationwide in 2009. The same study found 1,314 children under age fourteen died in car accidents that year. Further studies found that 8,325 lives were saved in a thirty year period due to the use of child restraints, numbers that don’t include the many more injuries prevented or limited due to proper child car seat usage.

A few key pointers on child safety seat usage:

Contact Information