Grassley ticked at Backlog of Veterans Claims

March 17th, 2010. By AbiK

Yesterday, Senator Grassley fired off a letter to Eric Shinseki—Secretary of Veterans Affairs—sharing his outrage at the number of veterans benefits claims that have gone to appeal and have been unjustifiably denied. According to figures presented in a recent case before the Supreme Court, Astrue v. Ratliff, between 50 to 70 percent of veterans benefits appeals fall into what Grassley refers to in his letter as “not just wrong but unjustified” denials.

Words like “startling”, “dysfunctional”, “cause for concern”, and “alarming” in Grassley’s letter convey the extent to which he—and Chief Justice Roberts who presided over arguments in the Supreme Court case—feel the backlog on vet disability claims is severe, growing and unacceptable.

Grassley is seeking answers to the following questions in an effort to improve the quality of Veterans Administration (VA) claims decisions and to reduce the number of unnecessary appeals:

1. What is the accurate percentage of veterans claims appeals in federal court where the government’s position is found to be unjustified?

2. What is the VA doing to improve the quality of VA claims decisions and reduce unnecessary appeals?

3. What is the total amount of attorney’s fees paid by the VA under the Equal Access to Justice Act for each of the past 5 years?

4. What is the source of the funds for attorney’s fees paid by the VA and were funds diverted from another part of the VA budget to pay these costs?

And he’s looking for those answers by March 26th. Stay tuned.

Watch Your P’s and Q’s on Facebook and Twitter

March 16th, 2010. By janem

If you have a potential personal injury suit, the first thing a lawyer will tell you is to “Keep your mouth shut”. They should also add -and many already do– “Stay off Facebook, Twitter, and any other social networking sites, including your own blog.”

Not only are more people than ever turning to Internet sources for news, a recent study from the Pew Internet and American Life Project show that, of people who do get their news online, 75 percent of them have links sent via email or social media. And that percentage includes private investigators, insurers, defense lawyers and judges.

Insurance companies see social media as a monitor or search for information about claimants. They are looking for information a claimant has posted regarding an accident, such as how it happened, who caused it, or even the claimant saying it was their fault.

They also look for information which might contradict what the injured person says about their injury.

Here are a few examples:

• In Ontario a woman who claimed she was disabled had Facebook photos of her dancing. The judge allowed the photos to be admitted as evidence in her personal injury case.

• A Florida woman claimed a back injury and couldn’t work. She went on a cruise with friends and they videotaped her whooping it up, including a videotape of her doing the limbo. The insurance company had been on her Facebook site, downloaded the video and was ready to show it to the jury. The case didn’t turn out to her liking.

• A Supreme Court judge ordered the production of records showing how often a plaintiff claiming a brain injury uses Facebook.

• In a Twitter libel case, you would need to choose 140 characters-at the most–very, very carefully. The promoters of “the Cookie Diet” allegedly claimed that celebutant Kim Kardashian is a fan But Kardashian disdainfully tweeted she would never be on such an “unhealthy diet.” The Cookies filed a defamation case against Kardashian.

And insurance companies look for general information to profile what kind of a person you are. So if you have photos posted on FaceBook or MySpace in a bar or doing something arguably illegal, judgment evidence will be made against you–more negative fodder that a jury might frown on. Value judgments will be made about you–and even a lawyer you hire might decide not to take your case.

It has long been established that electronic documents can be relevant. In one Ontario case, a judge scolded the insurer’s lawyer for failing to ask the plaintiff to produce her Facebook page as part of a sworn affidavit, or to bring up Facebook in cross-examination.  In another case, a judge ordered up the release of Facebook. So now some lawyers are demanding Facebook photos in every suit.

Typically, courts in civil cases can only demand private Facebook pages, or a twitter here and there if the material is directly related to the case. But just to be on the safe side, take Everything Down! Especially photographs and videos. The e-trail doesn’t stop there so be diligent: it’s also important that all your online friends purge you from their accounts. If a photo is tagged by someone else, it is still accessible by searching.  And strengthen your privacy settings. It’s BIG BROTHER on the Social Media Highway!

Congratulations Lawyers–you may get in accidents, but you don’t speed!

March 16th, 2010. By AbiK

Or is it that you just don’t get caught?

Yes, believe it or not, according to the top 10 list of crash-prone professions that was put out by Quality Planning Corp. and Insure.com at the end of last year, lawyers rank only above social workers for getting speeding tickets. However…

When you look at accidents, well, that’s a bit of a different story.

Here’s the break down on the top 10 crash-prone professions (journalists, pat your backs—you’re not on it). The accidents and speeding tickets are per 1,000 professionals in each category:

1. Doctors: 109 accidents and 44 speeding tickets

2. Lawyers: 106 accidents and 37 speeding tickets

3. Architects: 105 accidents and 72 speeding tickets

4. Real Estate Brokers: 102 accidents and 39 speeding tickets

5. Enlisted Military Personnel: 99 accidents and 78 speeding tickets

6. Social Workers: 98 accidents and 33 speeding tickets

7. Manual Laborers: 96 accidents and 77 speeding tickets

8. Analysts: 95 accidents and 40 speeding tickets

9. Engineers: 94 accidents and 51 speeding tickets

10. Consultants: 94 accidents and 50 speeding tickets

If you’re thinking this was an outlier kind of year, not so. Five years ago, in 2004, the same report listed these groups as the top 5 for being accident-prone:

1. Students

2. Doctors

3. Lawyers

4. Architects

5. Real Estate Brokers

SJS on Discovery Health Mystery Diagnosis

March 15th, 2010. By AbiK

Imagine thinking your child—as an infant—has a bad case of chicken pox only to find out that it’s not chicken pox but a very bad reaction to some medication (in this instance, an anti-convulsant). Then imagine finding out that the reaction has a name: Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS). And it can bring on a number of life-threatening symptoms in addition to leaving scars and medical conditions that can last a lifetime.

That’s what happened when Julie McCawley, now 16, was an infant and was admitted to a hospital for what was seemingly a very bad case of chicken pox. Covered with burn-like blisters, her eyes began to swell shut and she was finally diagnosed with SJS as the result of taking an anti-convulsant.

While Julie is fortunate to be alive, she has since endured 13 surgeries to counter the lasting effects of SJS and she is now blind in her right eye and photophobic. She also carries the scars from the blisters that once covered her body. 

Discovery Health’s Mystery Diagnosis will be airing a segment on Julie’s experience—it’s a program that all parents should aim to watch to become more aware of SJS, which can be difficult to diagnose—and according to Julie’s mother, Jean, that’s simply because “so few doctors are familiar with SJS”.

The Discovery Health Mystery Diagnosis program on SJS will air on March 22—check your local listings for times and channels.

Comfy UGG boots may lead to foot problems

March 15th, 2010. By AbiK

Remember when UGG’s first hit American shores? And you saw people like Pamela Anderson (Lee or Not-to-Lee?) wearing them in LA—even on the beach? And you were wondering why the heck someone needed boots that looked like they belonged in an igloo in 80-degree heat? And you’re still wondering—except now you realize they’re “like slippers you can wear anywhere!”—and people do wear them anywhere.

Because OMG they’re so comfortable! And fashion be damned—if Pamela, Miley, Reese, Jessica, Megan and Eva wear them (thank you coolspotters.com)—well, that’s the only testimonial anyone needs, right?

So here’s a testimonial that appeared in the Telegraph (UK) today that wasn’t exactly too fashion-friendly—it’s some commentary from Dr. Ian Drysdale on the ever-popular UGG boots and it ought to give some parents pause when considering whether to succumb to the wear-’em-to-school-cause-they’re-cool trend for their daughters. Dr. Drysdale, by the way, is head of the British College of Osteopathic Medicine.

Here’s the Telegraph headline:

Ugg-style boots “damage feet due to lack of support”

It seems that UK podiatrists and chiropadists believe that UGG’s and there omnipresent knock-offs are leading to a rise in the number of people having pain in their feet and knees.

According to Dr. Drysdale, because the foot does not get the proper support on the inside, it will lead to more ankle, knee, hip and back problems. He goes on to say, “These boots are not designed for outside wear. Just because something becomes a trend or fashionable doesn’t mean it’s good or right.”

Amen (non-religiously, of course) to that.

What it comes down to is that this style of UGG boot is basically a glorified slipper—like someone took some classic Read the rest of this entry »