$1,500,000.00 For Pedestrian Hit In The Cross-Walk

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Auto Accidents, Pedestrian Hit in Crosswalk, Pedestrian-Auto

pedestrian-in-crosswalk-web

Our office recovered the amount of $1,500,000.00 for a sixty-four year old pedestrian hit in the cross-walk by a vehicle. The injuries sustained in the accident were severe. Those injuries included a fractured left leg, fractured right foot, fractured right ankle and a cut to the upper lip requiring five stitches. Because the injuries were severe, and the cost to the insurance carrier was going to be substantial, every issue would be disputed. The insurance carrier disputed who was at fault in the accident. The insurance carrier disputed the nature of our client’s injuries and the extent of our client’s recovery from those injuries. The insurance carrier disputed the value of fair compensation for these injuries. And, despite the enormous difference of opinion on these issues, these issues were not the real dispute in the case.

Seven months after the accident, our client was at home recovering from her fractured left leg. While at home, our client tried to transfer out of her wheelchair and into another chair. As she was doing this, she fell and fractured her left hip. The insurance carrier denied all responsibility for this fractured left hip. The insurance carrier took the position that an injury that incurred seven months after the accident was not their responsibility. We disagreed and filed suit.

The injuries sustained from the fractured left hip became much more severe than the injuries sustained from the original auto accident. As a result of the fractured hip, our client underwent two hip surgeries and incurred hospital and medical bills approaching $200,000.00. In addition, her recovery period was substantially extended.

During the litigation, we were able to prove that our client had not yet totally recovered from her fractured left leg when she fell. Our client was still weak and unstable. We were able to successfully prove that if our client had not been injured in the auto accident, our client would not have fallen and therefore would not have fractured her left hip. And of course, the disagreements did not end there. The fractured left hip resulted in various unforeseen complications, all of which the insurance carrier refused to accept responsibility.

If you or your loved one are injured in an accident, do not assume that the insurance carrier will assume responsibility for the full consequences of that accident. They won’t. Call the Law Firm of Charles J. Gale, P.C.

$100,000.00 For Pre-Existing Injuries That Were Exacerbated By An Auto Accident

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Auto Accidents, Rear-Ended

auto-one-car-web

 

Our office recovered $100,000.00 for pre-existing injuries that were exacerbated by an auto accident, in this case a sixty-five year old retired man.

In cases such as this, when the fault of the other driver is obvious, the insurance carrier does not dispute fault.  In fact, the insurance company will gladly agree to pay for all medical bills “reasonable related” to the injuries sustained.  Furthermore, the insurance carrier will agree to pay for a “fair compensation: for the injury itself.

In this case, and in almost all cases, what the insurance carrier believes is “fair compensation” and what a reasonable person will think is “fair compensation” is vastly different.  Likewise with the medical bills.  What the insurance carrier believes are bills “reasonably related” to the injuries sustained and what a reasonable person thinks are bills “reasonably related” are vastly different.

And, to complete matters, many times the injured party, such as our client, will have pre-existing injuries that were exacerbated by an auto accident.

In fact, many sixty five year old retired individuals may have pre-existing medical conditions that they are dealing with day to day.  For example, our client had pre-existing knee ailments with bi-lateral knee replacements, shoulder ailments with bilateral shoulder replacements, foot injuries with nerve relocations, hand ailments due to arthritis, etc.  To our client’s dismay, the insurance carrier used these pre-existing ailments as evidence against our client that our client did not injure his shoulders, knees, hands, etc. from the auto incident since he was already “injured.”  And, to make matters worse, the insurance carrier claimed our client’s pain and suffering was not made worse by the auto accident.

The truth is different.  Many times a person’s will have pre-existing injuries that were exacerbated by an auto accident.

Many times a person’s pre-existing conditions are asymptomatic and under control prior to an accident, only to be made symptomatic and exacerbated by the auto accident.  And, that is exactly what happened in this case.  Our client had a pre-existing hand injury that, because of the auto accident, now required surgery to repair.

The insurance carrier refused to pay for this surgery.  In fact, the insurance carrier refused to acknowledge that the medical condition, in this case carpal tunnel syndrome and De Querain tenosynovitis, were caused by the accident.

Luckily for our client, we were able to prove that, in fact, the carpal tunnel syndrome and De Querain tenosynovitis were caused by the accident.  Further, we were able to prove that the surgery was the direct result of the accident.

In many auto accidents, the insurance carrier will claim that the pre-existing injuries were not exacerbated by the accident.  The insurance carrier will claim that the pre-existing injuries that were asymptomatic prior to the accident but are now symptomatic after the accident is not the result of the accident.

If you have pre-existing injuries that were exacerbated by an auto accident, you have the right to receive not only payment for your medical bills, but also compensation for the worsening of your condition.  Do not let the insurance carrier tell you that your pre-existing medical condition cannot be aggravated by an auto accident.  Or you’re your pre-existing medical condition which not requires additional medical treatment was not caused by the auto accident.

If you have pre-existing injuries that were exacerbated by an auto accident, CALL THE LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES J. GALE.

$100,000 for Pedestrian Struck by Vehicle

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Auto Accidents, Pedestrian-Auto

Pedestrian Struck by Vehicle While Crossing the Street

Pedestrian Struck by Vehicle While Crossing the Street

 

Our office recovered #100,000.00 for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle while crossing the street.  The  38 year old male pedestrian had the right-of way while crossing the street.  He was in the cross-walk and crossing with the walk signal.  The vehicle was traveling with a green light, making a left turn.  This type of incident happens all too often, the driver and the pedestrian both having the green light.  Needless to say, the insurance carrier denied all liability and refused to pay.  Suit was filed.

Even in simple cases like this, the insurance carrier will try to blame the pedestrian.  After all, the vehicle had the green light.  Didn’t the pedestrian see the left turning vehicle?  Was the pedestrian running?  Was his vision obscured?  Was his attention distracted?  Did he enter the street without having enough time to cross?

Pedestrians struck by vehicles can expect the insurance carrier to dispute liability.  And, even if successful, the insurance carrier will try to minimize the injuries.  After all, there were no broken bones, no cuts, no bleeding, no stitches and no concussion.   All x-rays were normal.

Actually, there were injuries, serious injuries that x-rays will not show.  In this case, the pedestrian sustained torn ligaments to his knee.  This will not show up on x-ray.  After extensive litigation, we were able to recover $100,000.00 for the pedestrian who “was at fault” and “sustained no injuries.”

If you or a loved one are the victim of an auto/pedestrian incident, call the Law Offices of Charles J. Gale for a free consultation.  If we do not recover, there is no charge.

 

 

$85,000.00 For Pedestrian Struck By Vehicle With No Serious Injuries

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Auto Accidents, No Serious Injuries, Pedestrian-Auto

 

 

Pedestrian In Crosswalk

Pedestrian In Crosswalk

 

Our office recovered $85,000.00 for a pedestrian struck by vehicle with no serious injuries.  In this case, a 36 year old police officer struck by a vehicle while investigating the scene of an auto accident.

 

The police officer was on the scene of another auto accident, investigating the scene.  While the officer was out of his vehicle completing the investigation, a drunken driver came crashing into the scene of the first accident, striking the police officer and multiple vehicles.   The pedestrian struck by vehicle with no serious injuries was rushed by ambulance to the hospital where he underwent extensive tests and examinations.  Luckily, there were no broken bones, no bleeding, no loss of consciousness, no bruises.  Because of the series of negative findings at the hospital, the insurance carrier disputed the extent of the injuries to the police officer, even in this clear liability case.  We had no choice but to file suit against the drunken driver.  The only way the insurance carrier was going to accept the fact that the police officer sustained injuries was to prove it in court.  Eventually, after the expense of litigation, we were able to prove that, in fact, the pedestrian struck by vehicle with no serious injuries did in fact sustain compensable injuries despite the fact that there were no broken bones, cuts or loss of consciousness.

 

When injured in a motor vehicle accident there are some important things you must do and know.  First, you should know that the insurance company will try to convince you that you sustained little or no lasting injuries from the accident.  They will argue, like the pedestrian above, that since no bones were broken, no cuts were sustained, no head injuries incurred and no objective findings from the various tests at the hospital, that you were not really hurt.  This of course may not only be false, but insulting.

Second, you should know that the insurance carrier will try to settle your case for less than full compensation.  What you think is fair compensation and what the insurance company thinks is fair compensation is rarely the same.  The insurance carrier will remind you that your medical bills have been paid by your health insurance company so the medical bills do not need to be considered.  This is wrong.  The insurance carrier will point out to you that your wages have been paid by your employer during your time off so your wages do not need to be considered.  This is wrong.  The insurance carrier will point out that the tests taken at the hospital were negative so you had no injuries.  This is wrong.  You will have to explain to the insurance carrier that they are wrong on their assumptions and prove to them why they are wrong.

 

Third, you should know that a “simple” auto accident is never simple.  The insurance carrier may not have enough insurance to adequately compensate you for your losses.  You may have to file an uninsured or an under-insured motorist claim.  There may be multiple parties at fault, or multiple parties wanting compensation from the same insurance carrier. Your injuries might be related to a pre-existing condition.  The insurance company disputes your injuries, or your medical bills or your time off work.  The areas of dispute are unless.

 

This is what you should do.  First, you should get the names and addresses of all witnesses.  Second, seek medical treatment immediately if you are in pain.  You should report to the doctor all parts of your body that are affected, even if the pain does not seem severe.  Days later, the pain may be much worse.  Third, you should take pictures of your car, immediately at the scene if possible.   Finally, you should contact your insurance company.  When doing this, do not give your insurance company a statement or allow them to record your statement as there is always a potential claim for uninsured or under insured motorist coverage.  Finally, should retain an attorney immediately.

 

Your initial consultation with the LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES J. GALE is free and you will be under no obligation.  We will discuss with you your rights and provide you a free and comprehensive evaluation of your case. We will explain to you in detail in steps involved in prosecuting your claim.  At no time will you be charged a fee unless we collect.

 

$85,000.00 for Rear-Ender Auto Accident

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Auto Accidents, Rear-Ended

auto-one car

Our office recovered $85,000.00 for our client who was involved in the all too common “rear-ender” auto accident.

In this case, our client, a fifty-seven year old woman, was simply rear-ended while driving on the expressway. Naturally, the insurance carrier felt that our client sustained only minor injuries.

In many rear-ender auto accidents, the insurance carrier will claim that there were no injuries, or only minor injuries, sustained in the accident. And, they will support this claim on the fact that there was no ambulance involved. Or that the client did not go to the hospital the day of the accident. Or that the client did not go to the hospital at all until days later.

Even in those cases in which the client does go to the hospital immediately from the scene, the hospital record may not fully reflect the extent of the injury. Quite often the areas of pain the day after the accident will be substantially different than the pain noticed the day before. Or, sometimes severe pain to one body part may mask an injury to another body part. Very simply, how one feels immediately after an accident may be entirely different days, even weeks later.

In this case, our client went to the emergency room three days in a row complaining of headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and back pain. Seven months later, our client had an MRI of the left shoulder, confirming a rotator cuff tear. Naturally, the insurance carrier refused the claim for a left shoulder injury, stating that our client did not injure her shoulder in the accident. Specifically, the insurance carrier claimed, correctly, that our client had no left shoulder complaints the day of the accident. And that our client had no complaints of shoulder pain on the three hospital visits following the accident. Therefore, our client did not injure her shoulder from the accident.

This scenario happens quite frequently in auto accidents. That is, many times a client will sustain injuries that do not fully manifest themselves until weeks, sometimes months after the incident. This usually occurs when a person sustains other painful injuries that attract most of their attention. Other, more serious but less painful injuries, are simply not noticed or not given adequate attention. A week or so later, when the distracting and painful injury subsides, the more serious injury begins to become noticeable.

This type of injury can be seen with ligament tears, such as tears to the ligaments or tendons of the shoulders or knees. Quite often, the injury is not very painful at first. It is only when the injury does not seem to get any better that the client gives it his full attention.

In this case, our client ended up tearing the ligament in her left shoulder. She underwent shoulder arthroscopic surgery involving rotator cuff repair. The surgery was performed one year after the accident.

The insurance company refused the claim and a lawsuit was filed. It was only after extensive litigation that the insurance carrier accepted liability.

If you are involved in an auto accident, you may have injuries that you do not think are serious, but are. These injuries may require medical attention sooner or later. The longer you wait to document your injuries, the more likely that the insurance carrier will deny your claim.

Don’t wait until the insurance carrier denies your claim. Call the Law Office of Charles J. Gale.

$70,000 for Auto Broadsided at Intersection

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Auto Accidents, Broadsided at Intersection

Auto Accident

Auto broadsided at intersection

Our client recovered $70,000.00 when her auto was broadsided at an intersection. The plaintiff, a 39 year old woman, was simply driving on a main street, going straight, with traffic. As she approached a green traffic light at one of many intersections she had passed, our client was broadsided by another driver who failed to stop at the red light.

This is a situation that happens all too often. Sometimes the insurance company will deny the claim entirely, saying that it was our driver who ran the red light.

Other times the insurance company will admit fault for the accident, but claim that our driver was not hurt. After all, our client had no broken bones, no bleeding, no concussion, no scars, etc.

In fact, that is exactly what the insurance company said to our client. No injuries. All x-ray reports were negative. In reality, our client did sustain injuries, except that the injuries were not visible injuries.

All too often, the victim of an auto accident will sustain severe neck and low back strains that are very painful and debilitating. These injuries will not appear on x-ray. Nevertheless, the injuries are real.

After the insurance company denied fault, then denied that our client sustained any injury, we filed suit. We won on both issues and recovered for our client the amount of $70,000.00. This was substantially better that the $0.00 that the insurance carrier offered prior to suit!

If you or your loved ones are injured in an auto accident, do not accept the insurance companies claim that you were the fault of the accident. Or that you were not injured from the accident. Call our office, Charles J. Gale, P.C.

$125,000 for Pedestrian Hit by Vehicle

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Auto Accidents, Pedestrian-Auto

pedestrian-victim-waiting-ambulance

Our office recovered $125,000 for Pedestrian Hit by Vehicle while standing next to his car in the parking lot.

Our client, a thirty-eight year old male, was standing next to his car in the parking lot when another vehicle struck him in the leg. There was no damage to either vehicle. Because of this, the insurance carrier denied that there was an accident, and specifically, denied any contact by their vehicle to our client. And, to complicate matters, our client had a prior knee injury. That is, the injury sustained in this accident was the same injury that our client had sustained years earlier. This is a very common scenario that takes place in many injury cases.

The pre-existing injury defense argues that our client had injuries that existed prior to the accident. In particular, the injury to our client’s knee was incurred prior to this accident by a previous incident. Furthermore, this accident did not make his prior knee injury worse. The insurance carrier will attempt to support this argument by the medical records, usually x-rays or MRI scans taken before the accident and compared to x-rays and MRI’s taken after the accident. We use the same medical records to support the argument that the accident did in fact make our clients’ injury worse. As is common in these matters, two individuals, myself and the insurance adjuster, looking at the same facts, in this case the medical records, will come to vastly different conclusions. It is our burden to prove that our view of the medical records is correct. And that the adjuster’s view of the medical records is wrong.

To prevail on this issue, other matters besides the medical records are also used to prove that the accident made our clients’ pre-existing injury worse. Our clients’ work limitations before the accident were compared to his work limitations after the accident. The need for therapy after the accident was compared to his need for therapy before the accident. In general, our clients need for medical treatment immediately after the accident, including diagnostic testing, arthroscopy and other treatment was compared to our clients need for medical treatment immediately prior to the accident.

In short, simply proving an accident caused by the insured is not sufficient to recover compensation for your injury. You must also prove that the accident made your pre-existing condition worse. If you are involved in an accident, and had a pre-existing injury to that same part of your body, proving the extent of your injury can be problematic. In short, you can expect the insurance carrier to fight you on this issue.

Our office has been recovering compensation for our clients with pre-existing injuries for over thirty years. If you or your loved one were injured in an accident, call the Law Offices of Charles J. Gale.

Recent Articles

Contact Us

Law Offices of Charles J. Gale, PC
14007 South Bell Road, Suite #254
Homer Glen, Illinois 60491

(630) 243-6409