Reno Personal Injury Lawyer - Sexual Abuse

Reno Surgery Center Situation Different So Far From Las Vegas Hepatitis Scare

Steve Klearman — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:56:18 GMT

I've been travelling for depositions the last few days while the story of deficiencies among ambulatory surgery centers has been brewing.

What's clear from the recent publicity regarding surgery centers other than the infamous Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada is that not so much is clear.

Apparently when the State determined that as many as 40,000 people who visited the Southern Nevada house of surgical ill-repute might be infected with some awful thing or another, the State decided that it might widen its probe. Not completely surprisingly, the State found bad practices elsewhere, including in Reno.

While bad practices are bad practices, it's not clear as of this writing just what the State may have found at locales north, and residents may wish to wait before rushing to judgment. My information is that allegations regarding Digestive Health Center in Reno are misleading and that local press may print clarifications in the coming days. So stay tuned and we'll see what happens.

Here are a few things we know:

First, people who have visited centers that have been cited for deficiencies or have questions about the investigation can talk to an expert by calling the health department's hotline at (702) 759-4636. The hotline can also be used by Northern Nevada residents; there is currently no hotline set up for local calls.

The foregoing was reported by the Reno Gazette Journal, which also indicated that "[f]or now, the state is advising the public to be patient."

Why, though, should the State think that people should or will be patient when the State itself has publicized vague information and directives?

Importantly, there has been no report that I know of that anyone in the Reno or surrounding areas has tested positive for some disease associated with bad practices at any northern Nevada facility. There is no known correlation between the spread of disease and northern Nevada deficiencies. And this distinguishes the northern Nevada inspections from the southern Nevada inspections.

Here are some other things we know:

State police, the FBI and Nevada's attorney general's investigators served warrants today at six southern Nevada medical clinics associated with a facility accused of infecting patients with hepatitis by reusing syringes and vials of medicine. According to the Reno Gazette Journal, police say the raids are part of a criminal investigation of officials at the Gastroenterology Center of Nevada;

Governor Gibbons said today in a news conference that better funding for more inspections of Nevada's out-patient surgical centers likely would not have prevented the unsafe practices that infected six patients with hepatitis C at a Las Vegas clinic. Frankly, this sounds somewhat absurd. Of course more inspections would have been useful. As things now stand, these clinics are inspected sporadically, and inspections occur once every seven or so years. Why wouldn't more inspections serve the public good?

The Nevada Health Department's site isn't especially enlightening, but there is a press release issued as of Friday and I reprint that below. Keep tuning in: I will be watching this story closely and will bring you unadulterated and balanced reports based upon media and independent research. For now, I agree that northern Nevadans should not jump to conclusions.

Here's the State's official press release, which can also be found at State Press Release on Surgery Center Inspections March 7, 2008

SEVERAL ADDITIONAL OUTPATIENT SURGICAL CENTERS
FOUND TO HAVE DEFICIENT PRACTICES

No Further Infectious Disease Reports Identified

Carson City--Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Director
Mike Willden announced today that the Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Licensure and
Certification (BLC) has found several outpatient surgical centers that have had deficiencies noted
during Focus Surveys currently being conducted. The Surveys are being completed as part of the
State's effort to inspect all fifty Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs) in the state that perform
outpatient surgical procedures.

In Northern Nevada, Focus Survey inspections have been done at ten of 19 ASCs. Three
facilities in Reno were found to be deficient due to a lack of using proper antiseptic practices or
for not using proper infectious disease prevention procedures. Five other facilities were found to
have problems that did not pose an infectious disease risk. In all eight cases, immediate
corrective action was undertaken before BLC staff exited the facility. At two facilities, Sierra
Vista Surgery Center and South Meadows Endoscopy Center, no deficiencies were noted.
In Clark County, the Gastrointestinal Diagnostic Center will receive a formal Statement
of Deficiencies on Monday, March 10, from BLC. The deficiencies noted at the facility are
similar to those discovered at the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada. The facility will have
ten days to submit its Plan of Correction to BLC (March 21, 2008). Upon further inspection, if
the facility is found to be negligent in adhering to the Plan of Correction, the facility is subject to
summary suspension of its license.

"It is important to note there has been absolutely no known infectious disease reports
associated with any of the facilities that were notified of deficient practices," Willden said.
"Further, the Bureau of Licensure and Certification does not leave a facility whose practices pose
a threat to public health until corrective action is taken."

Willden said the State Health Division continues to work closely with the Washoe
County Health Division and the Southern Nevada Health Division to monitor any reports of
infectious disease any of the three agencies discovers.

Three facilities in the Reno area who were identified as being deficient due to a lack of
using proper antiseptic practices or for not using proper infectious disease prevention procedures
are:

â€¢ St. Mary's Outpatient Clinic at Galena
18653 Wedge Parkway, Reno

Improper sterilization procedures

â€¢ Digestive Health Center
5250 Kietzke Lane, Reno

Improper sterilization procedures

â€¢ Sierra Center for Foot Surgery
1801 N. Carson Street, Carson City

Staff admitted reusing syringes

Willden said the State Health Division will post on its website (http://health.nv.gov)
information about all ASC inspections by BLC. Members of the public may call (775) 684-5900
24 hours a day to receive information about any questions related to the inspections or infectious
disease prevention.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Nevada Equitable and Legal Claims at Trial

Steve Klearman — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:10:44 GMT

On December 27, 2007 the Nevada Supreme Court clarified in Awada v. Shuffle Master, Inc., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 57, the manner in which a Nevada District Court may handle mixed claims for legal and equitable relief at trial and found as follows:

In this appeal, we consider the primary issue of whether a district court has the authority to bifurcate the legal and equitable claims presented in a single action, conduct a bench trial on an equitable claim, and then use the findings of fact and conclusions of law from that bench trial to dispose of the case. On this issue of first impression, we conclude that Nevada district courts have discretion to bifurcate legal and equitable claims in a single action and to first conduct a bench trial on an equitable claim. Furthermore, a district court that exercises such discretion may then use its findings of fact and conclusions of law as a basis for disposing of claims remaining in the case, so long as it does so in a manner consistent with Nevada law and our rules of civil procedure.

We also consider whether the district court abused its discretion by sua sponte disposing of the remaining claims in a summary judgment-like manner after conducting a bench trial on respondents' counterclaim for rescission. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it first considered respondents' counterclaim for rescission and rescinded the parties' agreement. Based on its findings and conclusions, the district court properly disposed of all of appellants' contract-based claims against respondent Shuffle Master, Inc., because those claims could not stand absent a valid contract. However, the district court improperly granted summary judgment as to the claims against respondent Mark Yoseloff and appellants' remaining claims against Shuffle Master because those claims can survive absent a valid contract between the parties. Additionally, the district court erred in resolving those claims without satisfying the procedural requirements of NRCP 56.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment as to appellants' claims for breach of contract and contract-based claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; we reverse the district court's judgment as to appellants' claims for fraud, civil conspiracy, conversion, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contractual relations/prospective economic advantage and as to appellants' claims against Yoseloff; and we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Update on Nevada Allstate Attorney Misconduct Case

Steve Klearman — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:00:57 GMT

In the ongoing squabble over Allstate defense attorney Phil Emerson's repeated misconduct in arguing cases at trial, the Nevada Supreme Court rendered its latest decision on January 17, 2008.

In its introduction to Lioce v. Cohen, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 1, the Court stated:

On December 28, 2006, this court issued an opinion in these consolidated appeals.[2] The defendants in each of the four underlying personal injury cases were represented by the same attorney, who gave substantially the same closing argument on behalf of his clients at each trial. Asserting that defense counsel's closing arguments constituted misconduct, the plaintiffs sought new trials, with varying success.

In that opinion, we revised the standards under which district courts are to evaluate requests for new trials based on attorney misconduct. Next, we reversed the denial of the motions for new trials in Lioce v. Cohen and Lang v. Knippenberg, and affirmed the grant of new trials in Castro v. Cabrera and Seasholtz v. Wheeler. Additionally, we determined that the defendants' attorney's closing arguments in Castro and Seasholtz amounted to misconduct, and we remanded those cases with instructions to the district courts to calculate and impose monetary sanctions on defense counsel and his clients.[3] Finally, we referred defense counsel to the State Bar of Nevada for disciplinary proceedings. This petition for rehearing followed. Having considered the petition, answers, amici curiae briefs, and the replies, we conclude that en banc rehearing is warranted in part under NRAP 40(c). We therefore grant the petition in part, vacate our prior opinion in this matter, and issue this opinion in its place. On rehearing, we reach substantially the same conclusion as in our prior opinion, but we decline to impose monetary sanctions on defense counsel and his clients.

Because defense counsel's closing arguments encouraged the jurors to look beyond the law and the relevant facts in deciding the cases before them, we agree that they amounted to misconduct. In determining whether the district courts properly decided that this misconduct warranted new trials or not, we take the opportunity to revise our attorney misconduct jurisprudence. New trial requests based on attorney misconduct must be evaluated differently depending upon whether counsel objected to the misconduct during trial. When a party successfully objects to the misconduct, the district court may grant a subsequent motion for a new trial if the moving party demonstrates that the misconduct's harmful effect could not be removed through any sustained objection and admonishment. With respect to unobjected-to misconduct, we conclude that the district court may grant a motion for a new trial only if the misconduct amounted to plain error, so that absent the misconduct, the verdict would have been different. When ruling on a motion for a new trial based on attorney misconduct, district courts must make express factual findings, applying the above standards.

In these consolidated appeals, we conclude that in Castro and Seasholtz, the district courts did not abuse their discretion by granting the plaintiffs' motions for a new trial, and therefore, we affirm the district courts' orders in those matters. In Lang and Lioce, however, we are unable to ascertain from the record whether the district courts abused their discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motions for a new trial. Accordingly, we vacate those orders and remand those two matters for a new decision on the new trial motions, based on the standards announced today. In addition, we refer defense counsel to the State Bar of Nevada.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Deleted Emails and Production

Steve Klearman — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:12:00 GMT

Ah the new and complicated world of how email production is handled by courts.

Scott Roseland, at cybercontrols (www.cybercontrols.net), cites to Benton v. Dlorah, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. D. Kan, Oct. 30, 2007. There, the plaintiff informed defendant at her deposition that she had deleted e-mails, and defendant filed a motion to compel plaintiff to produce relevant documents, to produce her hard drive, and for sanctions for spoliation of evidence.

Initially, the court ruled that the requesting party (defendant) had not adequately shown that the requesting party had refuted producing party's (plaintiff) assertions that she had produced all relevant documents, but allowed requestor to amend if further discovery demonstrated that producer had not produced all documents or "had spoliated relevant evidence." Id. at *3-*4.

On their subsequent motion to compel, requestors asserted that producer had admitted failing to produce a relevant e-mail, that she used her personal account instead of her work e-mail and admitted deleting "hundreds" of possibly relevant e-mails. Producer responded that requestor's request was not sufficiently tailored, that her personal computer contained personal and privileged information, and that the request constituted a "fishing expedition", not outweighing the harm to her.

The court ruled that producer must produce the relevant e-mails, which were responsive to requestor's request.

Deleting these e-mails, even if done in good faith and at a time before Plaintiff contemplated her legal action, does not necessarily remove the e-mails from her possession, custody or control. Deleted documents should be retrievable from her computer system and thus remain within in her control.

Id. at *7. The court ordered that if she could not produce the e-mails, "she shall produce for inspection her computer hard drive from which the deleted e-mails were sent. This will allow Defendants to use the services of a computer forensic specialist, if necessary, to retrieve them." Inspection of the drive would be limited to the subject of requestor's request. Id.

The court made no reference to any distinction between accessible and inaccessible data. In effect, deleted e-mails may now have moved into the realm of "accessible" data.

There is and will continue to be lack of uniformity in the way that courts handle production of email and other electronic data.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

The Date-Rape Toy

Steve Klearman — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:44:46 GMT

The name Aqua-Dots sends chills down the spine of families in the U.S. If you haven't heard about the recall that happened last month, then you are likely in the minority. About 4 million units of the product were recalled last month because they break down into a date-rape drug when ingested.

Currently 10 retailers and companies including Kmart, Walmart, Sears, Target and Mattel are being sued for their negligence in distributing Aquadots. Although they did put a disclaimer on the boxes that the dots are not for young children, it's impossible to police every child every second of every day. It only takes a second for a two-year old to grab a toy on a table and put it in his or her mouth, whether that toy was their elder sibling's or not. Four Australian children and two American children fell unconscious after ingesting the Aquadots, injuries which should not have happened in the first place.

Chinese companies are using increasing amounts of lead in their products to help increase the speed and volume of the toys that they are sending to the US and other countries. According to Macon.com, "lead poisoning - [is] the subject of about one-third of this year's recalls... from Oct. 1, 2006, through Sept. 31, 2007." All told there were about 25.6 million toys recalled this year, though the profiles of recalled toys were much higher this year than in previous years. Some parents are even going so far as to purchase lead testing kits to test on their children's toys or banning the purchase of Chinese made toys for their families all together.

It is true that products coming to the US must meet US standards, but regulating those products is sometimes sketchy. "It's not a new problem, but it's getting worse," said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, which released its annual report 'Trouble in Toyland'. "The reason it's getting worse is that manufacturers have stretched their supply chain to China, and the safety links are broken. Companies are not trying to pay attention to the law because they are not afraid of the CPSC [Consumer Product Safety Commission]."

So all things considered, it would probably be best to be careful of this year's toys and especially careful of most things made in China, not just toys. It's difficult to blame the Chinese for our own woes and even though toy manufacturers are going to put a foul-tasting chemical in Aquadots to prevent children from swallowing them, the fact that they need to in the first place makes a clear point: let the consumer beware.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Senator's Craig's Woes Deepen

Steve Klearman — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:37:51 GMT

Eight men say they either had sex with Sen. Larry Craig or were targets of sexual advances by the Idaho lawmaker at various times during his political career, according to Yahoo News citing the Idaho Statesman newspaper.

Amid pressure from top GOP leaders in Washington, Craig announced his intent to resign from the Senate. He later changed his mind, deciding to finish out his term, which expires in January 2009. He is also appealing in Minnesota courts to have his guilty plea overturned.

The newspaper identified four men and reported details of the encounters they say involved Craig. It also reported the accounts of four other men who did not agree to be identified but who described sexual advances or encounters involving the conservative Republican, who opposes same-sex marriage and has a strong record against gay rights.

One wonders if the Idaho Statesman would have been so intent on attempting to further expose Craig if Craig had not been so intent on denial...

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

HIV on the Rise in America

Steve Klearman — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:55:16 GMT

According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2001 to 2005 (the latest years available), the number of new cases of HIV infection diagnosed among 15-to-19-year-olds in the United States rose from 1,010 in 2001, held steady for the next three years, then jumped 20 percent in 2005, to 1,213 cases.

For young people aged 20 to 24, cases of new infection have climbed steadily, from 3,184 in 2001 to 3,876 in 2005.

According to E.J. Mundell at HealthDay News, experts say a number of factors may be at play, including the fact that many HIV-infected patients are now being kept healthy with powerful drugs -- making AIDS seem like less of a threat to young people than it did in the past.

Hopefully, complacency about this serious threat will not continue.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Myspace and Disclosure of Teen Risk

Steve Klearman — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:28:12 GMT

I often borrow from D. Garth Sullivan, Esq. at Indox Consulting (www.indoxconsulting.com).

Here's an interesting study about Myspace and the disclosure of teen health risks:

Social networking sites, such as MySpace and Facebook, have become popular Internet venues for adolescent social interaction. Approximately 25% of the estimated 150-160 million users of MySpace, the largest site, are under age 18. Social networking Web sites allow users to create personal profiles, communicate with others, and join groups. Given that the adolescent developmental stage prioritizes peer relationships and identity exploration, the immense popularity of MySpace among adolescents may bring little surprise.

Personal Web profiles are multimedia creations featuring text, pictures, blogs, audio, and video all posted by the profile owner to represent his or her identity. Web profiles may be public and available to anyone on the Internet, or private and available only to those who the profile owner designates as "friends."

Recent media reports have highlighted cases in which young adults posted information about risk behaviors, such as sexual activity and substance use, on their publicly accessible Web profiles and experienced repercussions of these disclosures. It is worth noting that posting risk behavior information on a public Web profile may place adolescents at risk, regardless of whether or not that information is valid. These risks may include unwanted contact and adverse reactions from potential employers, school admissions officers, and others. Another risk is that displaying risk behavior information on Web profiles normalizes risky behavior within the adolescent cohort and may encourage peers to engage in risky behavior themselves.

The goal of this study was to determine how common such health risk behavior disclosures were in the public MySpace profiles of adolescents who actively use MySpace. We also assessed the prevalence of display of personally identifying information, such as name, picture, and hometown. Posting both identifiable and risk behavior information creates additional risks to adolescents, as individuals may be targeted on the basis of the display of risk behavior information, then easily identified and located.

Results of the Study

Our results demonstrate that several important risk factors can be identified effectively and efficiently using publicly available Web profiles. Some sites also feature internal search engines that allow rapid identification of profiles displaying risk behavior. On MySpace, for example, it is possible to search for users who self-identify as drinkers and smokers. Further, social networking Web sites typically allow direct access to a large number of adolescents through email.

Educators and providers may also create or work through one of the thousands of groups devoted to health topics on MySpace. Previous studies have demonstrated that Internet approaches to modify behavior can be effective in older populations. Social networking sites may provide a new venue for identification, assessment, and interventions to prevent or reduce health risks.

An important factor to consider when viewing information posted on MySpace is that social networking Web sites provide no verification of any information displayed on individuals' Web profiles. The validity of online personal risk behavior information has not been completely evaluated, but there are reasons to be concerned that such disclosures reflect either intent or actual behaviors.

Previous studies of Internet behaviors have shown that computer use often encourages self-disclosure and "hyperpersonal" information, which supports the validity of Internet self-report. Most teens reported that the majority of their online self-representation reflects their identity, but the presentation may not be entirely current. Previous studies have also shown that even on Web sites designed to promote identity experimentation and exploration, such as chat rooms, subjects generally evolved their online presentations to fit their own identities.

The Media Practice Model summarizes these findings by stating that adolescents choose and interact with media on the basis of who they are, or who they want to be, at the moment. This theory suggests that adolescent disclosures made on MySpace profiles reflect either actual behaviors or behavioral intent, both of which are of interest to healthcare providers, educators, and parents.
Limitations to this study include that, as described above, information displayed by profile owners, including ages, pictures, and behavioral descriptions, cannot be objectively verified. In particular, anecdotal reports suggest that teens frequently misrepresent their age on Web profiles in order to bypass security restrictions placed on the profiles of younger teens. We studied profiles within the class of 2008 group in an effort to improve the likelihood of viewing profiles of actual 16- and 17-year-old adolescents. However, targeting 16 and 17 year olds through this MySpace group biased our sample population to adolescents in school and who join online groups, limiting generalizability.

Finally, although our prevalences were stable between data checkpoints, this study conducted a detailed evaluation of a relatively small number of profiles compared with the total 11,000 available for the class of 2008 group. The results of this study nonetheless indicate that adolescents who are active users of MySpace regularly post health risk behaviors and display personal identification

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Businesses Fighting Fewer Suits

Steve Klearman — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:08:37 GMT

The following comes from the American Associaiton of Justice quoting Sheri Qualters at the National Law Journal:

American businesses are filing and fighting fewer lawsuits, according to Fulbright & Jaworski's fourth annual Litigation Trends Survey. Seventeen percent of respondents have not defended a lawsuit in the past year, compared with 11% in the prior year. The rate of corporations bringing at least one new lawsuit dropped to 65%, compared with more than 70% in the prior year and 88% in 2004. Only 22% of in-house counsel expect their companies to be involved in more legal disputes during the next year."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Why Binding Arbitration Can Forfeit Your Rights

Steve Klearman — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:56:17 GMT

Yesterday I blogged on some of the negative aspects of binding arbitration. Here's more information on why this often misunderstood form of alternative dispute resolution can be problematic.

Buried in the fine print of most consumer contracts - such as credit cards, insurance plans and car deals - is a clause, which waives the buyer's constitutional right to trial by jury. These contracts mandate that consumers give up their rights before a dispute even occurs - this is called "mandatory, binding, pre-dispute arbitration." Arbitration was conceived as an informal, expedited process for resolving routine disputes between businesses. But when it is imposed on a weaker party, such as a consumer, arbitration can be used to defeat valid claims. Arbitration has several unique characteristics that stack the deck against consumers, making it harder for individuals to prevail in a dispute with a business.

Costs are high:An injured party must pay steep filing fees just to initiate a case--seldom less than $750. These fees do not cover the arbitrator's hourly charges, which are generally in the range of $200 to $300 per hour, split between the parties. All these fees must be deposited in advance, and almost always amount to thousands of dollars. Because the injured person has usually sustained a serious loss in the dispute with the business--foreclosure on a home, firing from a job, denial of medical care--most individuals covered by an arbitration clause cannot afford these costs and are forced to drop their cases.

Biased Arbitrators: Even though arbitrators are supposed to be impartial, they are often biased toward business, since only businesses will be repeat users of a particular arbitrator. If an arbitrator knows that a business may use them again and again, they are inclined to rule in their favor.

Limited discovery: Discovery is the process by which parties in a legal dispute obtain information and evidence in the possession of their opponent or third parties. In arbitration, discovery is a privilege, not a right, and many businesses draft arbitration clauses to severely restrict the consumer's ability to obtain necessary evidence. Moreover, since arbitrators do not have the power to enforce subpoenas, claimants must sometimes file lawsuits to get compliance--defeating the purpose of arbitration.

Prohibition of class actions: Nearly every arbitration clause prohibits participation in class action lawsuits. Class actions are the only effective remedy for wide-scale scams that rip off individual consumers or farmers in small amounts. Individuals do not have the time or resources to recognize, investigate, or prove the existence of such fraudulent practices.

Inconvenient locations: Arbitration clauses often require that hearings be held in a location inconvenient to the injured consumer or worker. Individuals may have to bear the cost of long-distance travel to have their case heard. For example, the Internet auction site e-Bay requires its customers to travel to its home turf of San Jose, California, to arbitrate any dispute.

One-way requirements. Most arbitration clauses require only the weaker party (the consumer, employee, or franchisee) to arbitrate his or her claims, while allowing the dominant party (the corporation) to sue in court on its claims. Thus, a sexual harassment victim can be forced to arbitrate a discrimination claim against a former employer, but if the employer sues to stop her from joining a competitor, the employer's claims are heard in court.

No public record. While proceedings and records of the courts are open to the public, most arbitration clauses and provider organizations require that proceedings be kept confidential. As a result, only the businesses that impose arbitration can track past decisions and know which arbitrators have ruled for them. Public discussion of the fairness of an arbitration ruling is discouraged, even if the case raises policy issues of wide concern. Moreover, arbitration sets no legal precedents to guide companies' future conduct.

Limited judicial review. Parties are allowed only limited judicial review of an arbitration award. A decision may only be overturned when there is fraud or "manifest disregard of the law." This is a very high hurdle to overcome because arbitrators are not required to issue written findings of fact or legal conclusions. Oddly enough, courts will refuse to hear appeals of arbitration decisions even when both sides have agreed to let a court do so!

Limited remedies. Courts can provide a range of remedies that are not available to a claimant in arbitration. Injunctive relief--a court order compelling the offending party to do something, or prohibiting that party from taking some action--cannot be obtained through arbitration. Arbitrators often split the difference between the two sides in awarding damages instead of determining the true costs of injuries. As a result, arbitration awards to consumers and employees are substantially lower than court awards.

Information for this blog comes from http://www.peopleoverprofits.org

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman