How the Monitoring of Social Media Comments by Insurance groups and the Medical Community Might Backfire.

The advice written in this article, and on this blog, Sensiblelaw.blogspot.com or anywhere on the Internet by Alessandro Machi may have value to Med Mal Attorneys who represent the Victims of Med Mal. Any use of my information by a Med Mal Attorney provided in this article or any other article I, Alessandro MachI have written on this blog, or anywhere else on the Internet that is used to garner a large settlement, I am requesting 5% of the settlement go to me, Alessandro Machi. My goal is to one day file my own lawsuit that will help protect the elderly, so any compensation I receive from benefiting others has the possibility of going back into the legal field via a new lawsuit that will help protect seniors. I believe I once helped a law firm get a 1.9 million dollar settlement and I wasn't even credited, which has limited my influence and reputation going forward.

If social media medical comments are being monitored by the Medical Industry and valid complaints are being raised within those comments and no effort is made to correct the valid complaints by those who read the comments, then the Medical Industry could be liable for not fixing problems they were made aware of.

Example, a lawsuit is filed about a Nurse who refused to triage a patient who was declining while in the ER bed. Comments are made online about what happened and those comments are used by Insurance firm Defending the ER to try and have the case thrown out.

The plaintiff's attorney would then file a motion to see every comment ever monitored by the Defending Party and their law firm representatives. If comments and complaints were found that would have educated the Hospital on how to improve their service, and the advice was not heeded or put into action, then the plaintiff's attorney could bring these examples to court to prove the Hospital was unwilling to fix problems they were made aware of.

If the Hospital did heed social media comments and complaints and made improvements, that also proves the Hospital previously had laxer standards. I believe Attorneys have never thought of this because to this day Attorneys warn their clients to not say anything in public. Writing TRUTHFUL comments online can be the righteous thing to do because it raises awareness, allows  victims to connect with each other, and creates discussion with the goal of ending reprehensible behavior, and provides much needed education and feedback to the Medical Industry.

Quashing TRUTHFUL discussion on the Internet would allow the Medical Community to keep replicating the same mistakes over and over and then argue they were following policy. As long as the commentary on the Internet is truthful, the commentary cuts both ways, the Medical Industry that monitors online comments and does nothing about it is liable as well.

I believe that most if not all law firms haven't considered attempting to quash a defendant's h truthful comments or complaints opens up those who Monitor the Internet for comments and complaints to release all the comments they have reviewed, and further opens up the Defendant to discuss if they have ever used social media comments to improve their services. No matter how the Defendant answers, it can be seen as a negative. Whereas the way it stands now is, all comments by the victim or the victims family is seen as a negative, this needs to be flipped.

According to ProPublica, Attorney's won't Touch 9 out of 10 winnable Med Mal Cases in the U.S.

Please read for yourself about the 90% of cases our beloved legal industry won't touch even though they are actionable and winnable malpractice cases.

30 Types of Patient Safety Violations that Law Enforcement or the Media won't Investigate.

I've come up with 30 various forms of Patient Safety and Fairness Issues and If I sleep on it I might come up with a few more. But as I look at the list, mistakes are going to happen. My concern is the line seems to be blurred when it comes to medical errors. 

Some mistakes on the list are relatively minor errors, some can cause death. But it seems no matter what goes wrong, it's as the medical mistake will be denied. Learning to always deny can then accelerate the instances in which blatantly illegal actions occur increase because the ER personnel know they are above the law, and above law enforcement investigations.

I'm not advocating that we start putting medical people in jail in record numbers. I am advocating that when they lower their ethical standards and then hide what they have done, they need to be investigated. Donald Trump wants a Space Force. I am suggesting we also should have a Medical Police Force who help keep Hospitals running at a certain standard. Heck, A Medical Police Force might not even have to carry a gun. If an ER is intentionally denying treatment to a patient in decline, wouldn't you want a big red button in each ER room that a patient or their rep could press and have the Medical Police intercede? Examples of Medical Mistakes that won't necessarily raise an alarm or a red flag.

Wrong Diagnosis
Wrong Prescription
Wrong Prescription Combination
Lack of Geriatric Doctors for Medicare Plans
Surgical Mistakes
Dental Mistakes
EMTALA Violation
Refusal to Document Stated Symptoms
Denial of Access to Love One
Guardianship Abuse

Doctor Won't Listen
Doctor was Condescending
Law Enforcement won't Investigate a Medical Crime
False Accusations by ER Staff
False Accusations by Hospital
Destruction of Evidence by Medical Staff
HIPAA Violation Accusation by Med Staff against Patient Rep.
Elder Abuse by Med Staff that isn't Investigated by Police.
Denial of Patient Symptoms by Medical Staff or Doctor
False Imprisonment in an ER, Hospital, or other location.

Medicare Fraud by ER, Hospital, or Healthcare Plan
Denial of Service when patient is not stable.
One size fits all Malpractice Insurance
Malpractice Insurance rarely accepts liability
Lack of Attorneys to take Viable Medical Cases.
Attorneys with Insurance Ties posing as Patient Advocates.
Lack of Journalistic Interest until a legal filing is made.
Lack of Free Legal Aid or Pro Bono for Medical Victims.
Lack of Low Bono Attorneys who work for cost only.
Lack of Low Cost or No Cost Expert Witnesses.

Med Mal Insurance Needs to be Partitioned into three different coverages.

Possibly one of the biggest scams perpetrated on American Citizen's wronged by the medical community is Med Mal Insurance. Med Mal Insurance appears to be one size fits all. If a Doctor makes a medical "mistake" and the mistake results in death or suffering, the mistake is treated no differently than if a medical worker breaks a law that results in death or suffering. Nor is a distinction made as to whether a law was intentionally broken, or if it was an honest mistake that led to a patient's death or suffering.

The result is all Medical Transgressors are equally protected. Law breakers and intentional ethics violators are treated equally and protected equally with those who make an actual medical mistake. Many victims of medical errors are unable to get justice of any kind since the Med Mal Insurance industry is so large and probably follows the credo of protecting all within their umbrella, irrespective of the intention of the alleged medical transgressor and irrespective of whether or not they broke any laws.

Hmmm, that last part is somewhat interesting, no? the Med Mal insurance industry that protects all equally, irrespective as to whether or not the accused broke a law, and if they broke the law, intentionally or not. Why hasn't this aspect of Medical Malpractice been challenged in court? Can Med Mal actually legally protect those under their auspices that have broken the law? Would we all not be better served if Med Mal insurance was broken up into at least three Med Mal Insurance prongs; Prong number one, It was either not a mistake, or it was an Honest Mistake, Prong Two, Broke the law but did not realize it, Prong Three, broke the law and the law was so obvious there is no justifiable excuse.

What if an attorney attacked the Med Mal Insurance Industry on the grounds that it was protecting lawlessness specifically because Med Mal Insurance is not partitioned? If Med Mal was partitioned, then negotiations could be done if the issue of lawlessness came up. Right now it appears each State's Medical Board has far reaching power that allows the Medical Board to not consider lawlessness, meanwhile law enforcement has ceded authority to the Medical Board in many States, perhaps all States and ignores medically related law violations until notified by the very entities that may very well be reluctant to turn in their own.

The one size fits all Med Mal Insurance has ground medically related mistakes and lawlessness to a halt in the United States. The shock of being told by law enforcement they won't investigate intentional violations of specific laws by medical personnel, or Paramedics refusing to intake any information from the caregiver who made the call for a person too ill or infirm to make the call themselves, is soul sucking at its worst when the victim dies as a direct result of medically related lawlessness and intentional insincerity.

A Sensible Law that would make a Difference, Lawyers helping In Proper Filers.

A law I'd like to seen enacted, If a person attempts to get legal representation from three different law firms and is rejected, that person shall be granted special In Proper status by which they can legally get assistance from any law firm or a lawyer without assistance being construed as a violation of the law.

As it stands now, Law Firms won't take many winnable cases, some estimates are as high as 90%, because the law firm is constrained by med mal caps that have not been adjusted for inflation for the past several decades.

Victims and the relatives of victims are basically victimized again by a system that won't litigate egregious wrongful actions of others, moreso if the egregious action is perpetrated by those who know better, aka professionals.

Yes, Law Firms will swarm to sue private citizens who make a mistake, but Medical Professionals who make intentional mistakes are given a free pass, over and over and over again. Law Enforcement won't get involved, Law Firms won't get involved, the private citizen has to learn to accept sub standard treatment.

The Elderly are in Danger and very few in the Legal Field seem to care.

There are legal arguments to be made on behalf of the elderly that can circumvent the age equals monetary value cap that most attorneys seem to ascribe to. EMTALA violations are not covered by Med Mal Caps yet most attorneys seem unaware of this. EMTALA violations are also considered elder abuse and most attorneys seem unaware of this as well.

I am hoping it is rare, but a savvy ER nurse can game the system against the elderly by claiming HIPAA violations as a reason to call a Code Gray. Code Gray's are the secret sauce that allow ERs to control situations to the point of lawlessness.

Incitement of Imminent Lawless action by one ER Nurse can cause the demise of seniors. I know, I witnessed it first hand.

Why is unsecured debt so easily converted to secured debt in a court of law?

Why do American courts allow an unsecured debt to be converted to a secured debt? This seems pathologically wrong. This also seems to make the credit card luring process riskless (other than credit card fraud). 

So why are credit card companies charging higher interest rates if they can convert an unsecured credit card debt to a secured debt?

If the debtor agrees to pay the debt once they start working and they put their intent in writing, why does the court feel compelled to step in and convert the unsecured debt to a secured debt and in the process put the debtor on the path to financial suicide?

When constructing an agreement with a debt collector, the debt collector won't even give 30 days for the agreement, they only give until the end of the month, so sometimes the short turnaround time is used to claim that the debtor reneged on terms. This is just appalling.

How to fix what is wrong without getting a Law School education.

The cost to attend law school creates intense narcissism in the students who make it through. Hugely in debt, no real job prospects other than once again starting at the bottom and trying to work their way up, I am of the opinion that many law students develop crappy attitudes.

I think there is a solution however. START YOUR OWN PARALEGAL COMPANY.

An ideal way to break out of the typical law student self-induced narcissism is to help others in your field, and actually make some money while doing it. As time goes on, some interesting things will happen.

You probably will have interactions with various law firms who maybe didn't even want to hire you when you first groveled with them for a job. You probably will end up helping people who are in pro per and pro se get their cases aligned. These clients, who maybe did not have tens of thousands of dollars to beg a lawyer to take their case, may actually have a grand or two available to spend with you.

You will begin to learn the nuances of the law, how different firms handle their paperwork, how judges react to various motions, and you will find out which cases win, and which ones lose.

The key is to not be so far in debt that opening a paralegal business won't even pay your expenses. Eventually, the contacts you make could put you in a position to either continuing to grow your paralegal business, or to step off and into the position at a legal firm that you wanted all along.

It would seem to me that if I were hiring for a law firm, and I saw a year or two of experience successfully running a paralegal business along with a solid law education, that that is the person I would hire.

Exciting announcement regarding our case.

I waited as long as possible. The insurance company is demanding the case be thrown out of court because we have not appeared at a deposition conveniently located at their building, which is over 25 miles away and because an exchange of evidence has not been happened either.

The judge had mentioned that speaking at the prior court hearings without an attorney is probably not a good idea. However, I have given up on finding an attorney for now, so I filed a response myself.

I have no idea ifwhat I wrote down will have any meaning in court or not. However, I did, and now I am waiting to see if the opposing side responds by tomorrow, or if we appear in court soon and see what happens.

So what is the exciting announcement? That I went ahead and filed a response.

Condensing my parents court case as much as possible.

Point number one. Car from behind rear ended my parents car. My mother suffered extreme neck pain from being hit from behind. The whiplash may have been exacerbated by the car she was in stopping on a decline that led to the street, the car from behind hit right around the time my father had stopped the car, causing a double jarring affect. The stopping of the car did not cause a problem, however that was the moment when the car from behind hit, causing the whiplash. There was over $3,000 dollars of damage to their car.

Point number two. The accident may have caused two my mother to experience two TIA's. She had never had a TIA before the accident.

Point number three. The elderly should not be required or forced to go to the same amount of therapy sessions as someone half their age. We maintain it is age discrimination to require the elderly to do the same level of therapy as someone half their age or receive a smaller settlement as a result.

Point number four. The insurance company can make an effort to help their policy holders avoid confrontational situations when exchanging insurance information after an accident. The insurance companies refusal to print a civility reminder into their insurance policy to be civil after an accident, especially if the cost is neglible to implement is an arrogance that can be addressed in a court of law.

Refutation of the morality vs legality argument.... When a product or service is MANDATED by law, the purchaser should expect a reasonable standard of care or service by the provider of said service or product. If the insurance provider is not providing that standard of service or care, the insurance company should be held accountable since the buyer of the product IS FORCED TO BUY THE PRODUCT BY LAW.

--------------------------------------

This is not about me over dramatizing what happened to my parents as somehow being more important than any one else's parents. This is about protecting the elderly from insurance behavior that is discriminatory. Please get involved, we need a lawyer and are located in southern california.

Another Newly Lawyered, not yet Liquored YouTube Video, Why men are abused.

This is another in the Newly Lawyered, not yet Liquored YouTube video theme to try and get the legal profession to lighten up a bit and either laugh, or cry. You'll be a better attorney if you actually have a real sense of humor.

For the newly Lawyered but not yet Liquored, a youtube video just for you.

Dumb Attorney Wanted in the Los Angeles Area.

I had no idea I was such an ignorant person, but several anonymous JD's forum posters have basically said such. When I was in high school a long while ago, I scored the second highest score in the social studies aspect of the ACT TEST for my entire high school class of over 600.

I find it fascinating that the one area that I probably excel in most scholastically that relates to social interaction also results in my being labeled a dumb dumb when it comes to "the law". Anyways, since I am a dumb dumb, I need to find a dumb attorney.

The qualifications for being a dumb attorney include caring less about the monetary value of the case and moreso about the possibility of setting not one, but two precedents, both of which will help protect the elderly and more fairly represent them when they are involved in automobile accidents.

The case does not need overly complex research. It just needs to be argued in front of a jury and a good result should happen. I am running out of time however. The insurance company can be made to look foolish in court, and have already more than doubled their original offer, yet I am still having difficulty finding a dumb lawyer to work with a dumb dumb such as myself.

Update on Protecting the Elderly, the Ultra Brief Version.

Purpose of the Case:

Establish that the Elderly should not be forced into a one size fits all ages treatment paradigm for injuries suffered during a traffic accident.

Since the elderly cannot realistically expect the same type of treatment result as someone half their age, their settlement offers should not be based primarily on how many times they go for treatments since the treatments may prove to be less therapeutic.

Add civility language to existing insurance policies (does not have to be enforceable by the insurance companies) to reinforce the message that policy holders remain civil towards one another when exchanging insurance information after an incident.

This is a no brainer. It costs the insurance companies virtually nothing to implement this notice to their policy holders, yet they refuse to do it.

---------------------------------------------

Desired Result of specific Case:

Compensate for two subsequent T.I.A's that occurred after the accident.

Compensate for actual neck injury

Compensate for gross indifference to request that insurance policies include wording to act civilly towards others when exchanging insurance information.

Eradicate the age discriminating practice of forcing the elderly to go to as many physical therapy treatments as someone half their age.

------------------------------------

Winning Argument:

When insurance companies won't even take the simplest of actions to help protect their elderly policy holders, they must be held accountable.

APPLE, Canon Cameras, and Costco may be conspiring to sell cameras that just don't work properly.

There are several winnable lawsuits just waiting for the right lawyer. If I were a lawyer just starting out and had the ability to take a case on, rather than wait to be hired by a law firm, I would give serious consideration to taking on a corporate giant if their actions are obviously damaging the public at large. Below is such a case.

Apple, Canon, and Costco have all conspired to sell Canon cameras that disables the Canon Software package on the Macintosh Snow Leopard platform, even though the packaging on Canon cameras specifically states their their camera works on a Mac.

Technically, the canon cameras will work with I-photo, but one can't effectively use the canon proprietary software that comes with the canon camera. The Canon software is actually very useful, easy to learn, and fast.

It's been four months since Snow Leopard was released and every day anyone who upgrades to Snow Leopard and has a canon powershot camera has instantly been locked out of using the Canon Software. Meanwhile, Apple, Canon and Costco remain silent over the matter. Apple actually released Snow Leopard ahead of schedule knowing it would not work properly with Canon Cameras.

By releasing Snow Leopard a week early Apple gained status because they beat the delivery deadline. It is kind of like the wedding cake being delivered without the frosting and the cake maker then bragging they got to the event half an hour earlier than expected. Apple stands to gain by not making their Snow Leopard platform downwardly compatible as it forces consumers to buy into the Apple method of uploading photos.

Has Apple offered any of their technicians to Canon to make sure Canon cameras will upload properly onto a Snow Leopard operating system? Is Canon working diligently to solve this now 4 month old problem? Why is Costco selling Canon product that they KNOW is deficient? If Canon releases updated software to alleviate the problem four months after the problem first existed, does that erase the damage that has already been done to canon powershot users who use snow leopard?

Protecting the Elderly from Discriminatory Practices...

A super short one minute version of this article and case can be found here.

Automobile Insurance companies can easily do more to protect the elderly when the eldery are required to exchange insurance information after an accident.

It is our assertion that after an accident involving my elderly parents and a younger driver (the younger driver was at fault), the younger driver further endangered my parents with his behavior while the two sides were supposed to be exchanging insurance information. (I won't get into the specifics here.)

Afterwards, my mother went for one physical therapy treatment but did not go back again because the treatment was not helpful. She felt if she continued the treatments the treatments would do more harm than good. It appears that because my mother only went for one treatment, the insurance company has low balled their offer to her even though my mother also suffered two T.I.A.'s later on.

The causal relationship between the two T.I.A.'s may not be provable, but they most likely cannot be disproved either.

Our original attorney did not want to take the matter to court, however they did assist in filing the case in pro per.

There are three specific issues that I would like to see addressed.

Firstly, I would like future insurance company policies to include language that encourages policy holders to act civilly after an accident and also when insurance information is being exchanged.

The person who created the accident put my father and mother through unnecessary and additional stress after the accident, and even put their physical well being in harms way a second time.

I want to combat this type of behavior in the future and believe this case can help accomplish this. While there is no guarantee that getting the insurance companies to add language to their insurance policies will reduce aggressive behavior after an accident, not putting a caution in their policies is questionable since it does not cost the insurance company anything to implement.

Our request is similar to putting a caution label on a ladder not to go above a certain step. Before such a warning on a ladder was added, the idea of a ladder warning was probably ridiculed as being unnecessary, but after it had been added, it no doubt has reduced the number of accidents involving the unsafe use of a ladder.

In another instance, when police officers actually visited gang member's homes and verbally read to them that they could end up tried, convicted, and jailed if they were seen with other gang members, gang crime actually dropped in those same neighborhoods.

Yet before such direct action was taken by the police, many would have ridiculed the idea that a police officer actually visiting a reputed gang member at their home to inform them about associating with other gang members in public as being pointless act, yet they too have now been proven wrong.

I am not suggesting the insurance company actually enforce the warning, however the end result could be more polite behavior simply by everybody being advised about the insurance companies request.

The second issue this court case would raise is to not set a discriminatory treatment standard for an elderly person.

My mother was 79 years old when she went for her first and only physical therapy treatment. After first being injured from the rear end collision with the defendant's car, and then being rudely treated by the defendant during the exchange of insurance information, my mother was concerned for her own health and safety.

After one physical therapy treatment my mother was concerned that not only did she not feel better, she became concerned she could be injured moreso if she went back for another physical therapy treatment.

She made a wise decision to not seek more treatment, but instead rest at home, and for that decision, she has been lowballed in a settlement offer. Why should a younger society tell a 79 year old woman that she MUST go for several treatments when she knows her own 79 year old body better than someone half her age?

Why are people half her age dictating how she must behave, especially after already having three unacceptable experiences related to the accident occur; the accident, the alleged behavior of the defendant after the accident, and the first treatment.

Each time the other person that was involved was significantly younger and in all three instances the result was not amicable for my mother. She said enough is enough after the first therapy treatment. Rest at home, for her situation, turned out to be a valid therapy option. Even at age 79, she was very active, preparing meals and doing many types of housework. She was not able to do those activities after the accident until she rested and healed.

Her decision to rest at home certainly was equal to or better than having someone half her age handle her neck in a way that put fear into her of an additional injury if she continued going for treatments.

The third issue is Damages.

My mother was injured by the accident, traumatized by the behavior of the other driver after the accident, was not helped by her first treatment, and then she experienced two mini strokes several months after the accident.

While there is no direct proof that the accident caused the mini strokes, the whiplash affect followed by two mini strokes several months later may definitely have some causal relationship as he had never had a T.I.A. before the accidents. ----------------------------------------------------

The value of this case could be as little as a thousand dollars, but could also result in a much much higher jury settlement if the jury feels that the insurance industry was too inflexible with how they deal with the elderly and needs to set a precedent to get the insurance company to listen.

I believe the three issues I have raised, if victorious in a court decision, will help all elderly people in the future and could start your own career down a successful path by having created an actual court precedent. ---------------------------------------------------------

The kind of personal injury attorney I am looking for in the Los Angeles Area....
I am looking either for a senior aged attorney who wants to fight for the elderly, and is interested in winning the case and possibly setting a precedent.

Or, the attorney can be someone who just passed the bar. If you happen to have a practice and have an impressive, "just passed the bar" resume in front of you, you may find this case an excellent way to see how a prospective future hire performs in court.

The attorney will get a percentage of the settlement (assuming we get one) so this is not a for free hire, and a firm that sends a referral get to see how the attorney performs without it draining their own law firm's resources.

If you are a law school professor and would like to recommend someone, that is fine by me as well. I believe this case could establish a court precedent that will positively protect elderly people in the future. --------------------------------------------------

I have one case filed in pro per plus two more that I would like to file after the first one is resolved. My goal is to protect the elderly from laws that either don't fairly represent them or take advantage of them because of their age.

The additional 2 or 3 cases will only be filed after the first case is resolved. I would prefer that my future cases be filed through an attorney. All of these cases have a similar theme that involve protecting the elderly from unfair insurance practices.

Thank you for responding to my EXPERT LAW POST regarding attorney services wanted.

A more abbreviated version of this article and case can be found by clicking here.

A super short one minute version of this article and case can be found here.

The Internet is a strange place. On the same day that I donated my own time to answer a couple of questions on an experts website that I have been a part of for a couple of years, I get banned from the Expert Law Forum for posting a link to this blog.

Within hours of posting about my case on the Expert Law Forum, I tried to log in this is what I saw.

Anyways, I went ahead and emailed the website owner to see if there is some type of compromise that can be worked out since I truly don't know what I did wrong.----------------------------------------------------

The kind of personal injury attorney I am looking for in the Los Angeles Area....

I am looking either for a senior aged attorney who wants to fight for the elderly, and is interested in winning the case and possibly setting a precedent.

Or, the attorney can be someone who just passed the bar.

If you happen to be a successful attorney and have impressive, "just passed the bar" resumes in front of you, you may find this case an excellent way to see how a prospective future hire performs in court. The attorney will get a percentage of the settlement (assuming we get one) so this is not a for free hire, and you get to see how the attorney performs without it draining your own law firm's resources.

If you are a law school professor and would like to recommend someone, that is fine by me as well.

I believe this case could establish a court precedent that will positively protect elderly people in the future.

--------------------------------------------------

I have one case filed in pro per plus two more that I would like to file after the first one is resolved. My goal is to protect the elderly from laws that either don't fairly represent them or take advantage of them because of their age.

The other 2 or 3 cases will only be filed after the first case is resolved. I would prefer that future cases be filed through an attorney.

All of these cases have a similar theme that involves protecting the elderly from unfair insurance practices.

The first case is a personal injury case involving my own parents who were rear ended by another driver.

Although I currently have the case filed In pro per I would prefer to have an attorney representing us.

Insurance companies can easily do more to protect the elderly when it comes time to exchange insurance information after an accident.

It is our assertion that after the accident, the other driver further endangered my parents with his behavior while the two sides were supposed to be exchanging insurance information. I won't get into the specifics here.

My mother went for one physical therapy treatment after the accident but did not go back again because the treatment was not helpful. She felt if she continued the treatments the treatments might do more harm than good.

It appears that because my mother only went for one treatment, the insurance company low balled their offer to her even though my mother also suffered two T.I.A.'s after the accident. The causal relationship may not be provable, but it most likely cannot be disproved either.

Our original attorney did not want to take the matter to court, however they did assist in filing the case in pro per.

The insurance company did not follow my request that any future discussions be initiated via a letter first. Apparently, an attorney representing the insurance company and their policy holder called our home and made an alleged offer for double the amount. I was so shocked to just get a cold call out of the blue after I specifically requested future communication start with a letter that I did not initially understand who this person was.

That insurance attorney has actually put in writing that I am a liar over this point even though it was their inability to read the case files BEFORE CALLING that caused the confusion. The insurance attorney has also put in writing that the death of my father was an "irrelevant" reason to delay the proceedings.

There are three specific issues that I would like to see addressed.

Firstly, I would like future insurance company policies to include language that encourages policy holders to act civilly after an accident and when insurance information is being exchanged. The person who caused the accident put my father and mother through unnecessary and additional stress after the accident, and even put their physical well being in harms way as well. I want to combat this type of behavior in the future and believe this case can help accomplish this.

While there is no guarantee that getting the insurance companies to add language to their policy will reduce aggressive behavior after an accident, not putting a caution in is questionable since it does not cost the insurance company anything to implement.

Our request is similar to putting a caution on a ladder not to go above a certain step. Before such a warning on a ladder was added, the idea of a ladder warning was probably ridiculed as being unnecessary, but after it had been added, it no doubt has reduced the number of accidents involving the unsafe use of a ladder.

In another instance, when police officers actually visited gang member's homes and verbally read to them that they could end up tried, convicted, and jailed if they were seen with other gang members, gang crime actually dropped in those neighborhoods. Yet before such direct action was taken by the police, many would have ridiculed the idea that a police officer actually visiting a reputed gang member at their home to inform them about associating with other gang members in public was a pointless act, yet they too have now been proven wrong.

I am not suggesting the insurance company actually enforce the warning, that would be up to the party that was endangered by the actions of the other person to prove, but it would make their case stronger if the warning actually existed, the end result could be more polite behavior during a difficult time.

The second issue this court case would like to raise is to not set an unfair treatment standard for an elderly person, to not discriminate against them because of their age. My mother was 79 years old when she went for her first and only physical therapy treatment.

After first being injured by by the rear end collision from the defendant's car, being rudely treated by the defendant during the exchange of insurance informatin, to getting no physical relief after one physical therapy treatment, my mother felt she could be injured even moreso if she went back for another physical therapy treatment. She made a wise decision to not seek more treatment, but instead rest at home, and for that decision, she has been lowballed in a settlement offer.

Why should a younger society tell a 79 year old woman that she MUST go for several treatments when she knows her own 79 year old body better than someone half her age? Why are people half her age dictating how she must behave, especially after already having three unacceptable experiences related to the accident occur; the accident, the alleged behavior of the defendant after the accident, and the first treatment. Each time the other person that was involved was significantly younger and in both instances the result was not amicable for my mother.

She said enough is enough after the first therapy treatment. Rest at home, for her situation, turned out to be a valid therapy option. Even at age 79, she was very active, preparing meals and doing many types of housework. She was not able to do those activities after the accident until she rested and healed.

Her decision to rest at home certainly was equal to or better than having someone half her age handle her neck in a way that put fear into her of an additional injury if she continued going for treatments.

The third issue is Damages. My mother did experience two mini strokes after the accident. While there is no direct proof that the accident caused the mini strokes, the whiplash affect followed by two mini strokes afterwards may definitely have some causal relationship.

----------------------------------------------------

The value of this case could be as little as a thousand dollars, but could also result in a much much higher jury settlement if the jury feels that the insurance industry was too inflexible with how they deal with the elderly.

I believe the three issues I have raised, if victorious in a court decision, will help all elderly people in the future and could start your own career down a successful path by having created an actual court precedent.

Thank you for responding to my Facebook Ad regarding attorney services wanted.

A more abbreviated version of this article and case can be found by clicking here.

A super short one minute version of this article and case can be found here.

The kind of personal injury attorney I am looking for in the Los Angeles Area....

I am somewhat flexible in my search for an attorney, so if you don't fit who I am looking for, that does not necessarily mean you cannot convince me you are the right attorney for this case.

I am looking either for a senior aged attorney who wants to fight for the elderly, and is interested in winning the case describe below irrespective of what it generates financially.

I am also looking for a completely green attorney who just passed the bar. Yes, I'll take a chance on you if you take this case seriously and are excited by the opportunity to win your first case while also helping the elderly in general.

If you happen to be a successful attorney and have impressive just passed the bar resumes in front of you, you may find this case an excellent way to see how a prospective future hire performs in court. I am fine with you suggesting a prospective attorney. The attorney will get a percentage of the settlement (assuming we get one) so this is not a for free hire, and you get to see how they perform without it draining your own law firm's resources.

If you are a law school professor and would like to recommend someone, that is fine by me as well.

If you are a law student who recently passed the bar but still live at home with your folks in the Los Angeles area and want to just focus on this one case, and win it, than you may be who I am looking for as well.

Not only could this case end up being one of your more satisfying experiences, we may be able to establish a court precedent that will positively protect elderly people in the future.

--------------------------------------------------

I have one case filed in pro per plus two more that I would like to file after the first one is resolved. My goal is to protect the elderly from laws that either don't fairly represent them or take advantage of them because of their age. The other 2 or 3 cases will only be filed after the first case is resolved. I would prefer that future cases be filed through an attorney.

All of these cases have a similar theme that involves protecting the elderly from unfair insurance practices.

The first case is a personal injury case involving my own parents who were rear ended by another driver.

Although I currently have the case filed In pro per I would prefer to have an attorney representing us.

Based on California law, it appears the other driver was completely at fault. The behavior of the driver during the exchange of insurance information was unacceptable in our opinion.

The exchange of information creates an important opportunity to use this case to potentially increase protection against all seniors in the future when exchanging automobile insurance information with another person.

It is our assertion that after the accident, the other driver was rude and actually further endangered my parents with his behavior while the two sides were supposed to be exchanging insurance information. I won't get into the specifics here.

My mother went for one physical therapy treatment after the accident but did not go back again because the treatment was not helpful. She felt if she continued the treatments the treatments might do more harm than good.

It appears that because my mother only went for one treatment, the insurance company low balled their offer to her even though my mother also suffered two T.I.A.'s after the accident. The causal relationship may not be provable, but it most likely cannot be disproved either.

Our original attorney did not want to take the matter to court, however they did assist in filing the case in pro per.

The insurance company did not follow my request that any future discussions be initiated via a letter first. Apparently, an attorney representing the insurance company and their policy holder called our home and made an alleged offer for double the amount. I was so shocked to just get a cold call out of the blue after I specifically requested future communication start with a letter that I did not initially understand who this person was.

I really did not understand this person's actual relationship to the insurance company, and the timing of the call was horrendous as well. I specifically wanted to know in advance that someone would be calling so I could be prepared for the call. This instruction was not followed and I had no idea who the person was on the other end of the line. Their alleged offer and that communication was never followed up with a letter, so I don't know how realistic it was.

That insurance attorney has since put in writing that I am a liar over this point even though it was their inability to read the case files BEFORE CALLING that caused the confusion. The insurance attorney has also put in writing that the death of my father was an "irrelevant" reason to delay the proceedings.

There are three specific issues that I would like to see addressed.

Firstly, I would like future insurance company policies to include language that encourages policy holders to act civilly after an accident and when insurance information is being exchanged. The person who caused the accident put my father and mother through unnecessary and additional stress after the accident, and even put their physical well being in harms way as well. I want to combat this type of behavior in the future and believe this case can help accomplish this.

While there is no guarantee that getting the insurance companies to add language to their policy will reduce aggressive behavior after an accident, not putting a caution in is questionable since it does not cost the insurance company anything to implement.

Our request is similar to putting a caution on a ladder not to go above a certain step. Before such a warning on a ladder was added, the idea of a ladder warning was probably ridiculed as being unnecessary, but after it had been added, it no doubt has reduced the number of accidents involving the unsafe use of a ladder.

In another instance, when police officers actually visited gang member's homes and verbally read to them that they could end up tried, convicted, and jailed if they were seen with other gang members, gang crime actually dropped in those neighborhoods. Yet before such direct action was taken by the police, many would have ridiculed the idea that a police officer actually visiting a reputed gang member at their home to inform them about associating with other gang members in public was a pointless act, yet they too have now been proven wrong.

I am not suggesting the insurance company actually enforce the warning, that would be up to the party that was endangered by the actions of the other person to prove, but it would make their case stronger if the warning actually existed, the end result could be more polite behavior during a difficult time.

The second issue this court case would like to raise is to not set an unfair treatment standard for an elderly person, to not discriminate against them because of their age. My mother was 79 years old when she went for her first and only physical therapy treatment.

After first being injured by by the rear end collision from the defendant's car, being rudely treated by the defendant during the exchange of insurance informatin, to getting no physical relief after one physical therapy treatment, my mother felt she could be injured even moreso if she went back for another physical therapy treatment. She made a wise decision to not seek more treatment, but instead rest at home, and for that decision, she has been lowballed in a settlement offer.

Why should a younger society tell a 79 year old woman that she MUST go for several treatments when she knows her own 79 year old body better than someone half her age? Why are people half her age dictating how she must behave, especially after already having three unacceptable experiences related to the accident occur; the accident, the alleged behavior of the defendant after the accident, and the first treatment. Each time the other person that was involved was significantly younger and in both instances the result was not amicable for my mother.

She said enough is enough after the first therapy treatment. Rest at home, for her situation, turned out to be a valid therapy option. Even at age 79, she was very active, preparing meals and doing many types of housework. She was not able to do those activities after the accident until she rested and healed.

Her decision to rest at home certainly was equal to or better than having someone half her age handle her neck in a way that put fear into her of an additional injury if she continued going for treatments.

The third issue is Damages. My mother did experience two mini strokes after the accident. While there is no direct proof that the accident caused the mini strokes, the whiplash affect followed by two mini strokes afterwards may definitely have some causal relationship.

----------------------------------------------------

The value of this case could be as little as a thousand dollars, but could also result in a much much higher jury settlement if the jury feels that the insurance industry was too inflexible with how they deal with the elderly.

I believe the three issues I have raised, if victorious in a court decision, will help all elderly people in the future and could start your own career down a successful path by having created an actual court precedent.