Posts Tagged ‘Different’

PIP Changes Mean Different Options for Those Injured in a Miami Car Accident This Month

Monday, July 16th, 2012

As of July 1, Florida has introduced changes to its PIP coverage, so anyone who is involved in a Miami car accident from this month forward can expect some changes. PIP (Personal Injury Protection) coverage, also commonly called “no-fault” coverage, ensures that if someone is injured in a Miami traffic accident or Florida traffic accident they have medical care paid for promptly, regardless of who caused the car collision.

While the system is intended to ensure that everyone has money for needed medical care without a complex claims process, there have been criticisms of the system. Florida has come under fire for having one of the highest instances of insurance fraud in the country, and many claim that this is because the PIP coverage system is easy to abuse. In recent years, many fraudsters have been accused of staging Miami truck accidents and car accidents and even working with clinics to get the maximum 000 payout for even minor or fake injuries. The insurance has also become very expensive.

As a result of the criticisms, Florida legislators have made some changes. Starting July 1, those injured in a serious car accident will only be able to claim the maximum 000 PIP amount if they have an “emergency medical condition.” Less serious injuries will have a maximum coverage of 00. In addition, only dentists, medical doctors, and osteopaths will be able to declare an injury an “emergency medical condition.” Chiropractors will not be permitted to make the decision.

As a result of the new rules, car accident victims in the state will need to seek medical treatment within 14 days of their initial injury and accident. If they fail to do so, they will not qualify for PIP benefits at all. In addition, the new changes will mean that treatments such as massage and acupuncture will not be covered by PIP.

Experts have criticized the new rules, saying that it may be harder for some Miami motorcycle accident and car accident victims to get treatment for their injuries. For example, some victims may not notice symptoms until after the initial 14 days have passed. In addition, soft tissue injuries – which can be painful and expensive to treat – do not qualify as emergency medical conditions. Even some doctors have questioned the new rules, pointing out that the 00 cap for non-emergency conditions is troubling since some tests – including MRIs – can cost more than 00 alone.

It can be challenging to recover after a Miami car accident – and even more so if your insurance does not cover the full cost of your injuries. The new rules are confusing for many accident victims and may not allow for enough compensation to pay for medical care. It is more important than ever before to be aware of all your options before you make any decisions in your case. If you are seriously injured in a Miami traffic accident, contact a Miami personal injury attorney to at least review your options and your possible costs.


Florida Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Do Children From Different Circumstances Have Different Injury Rates After a Miami Car Accident?

Saturday, May 26th, 2012

A new study from the Montreal Public Health Department, published in the American Journal on Public Health, suggests that those who live in neighborhoods with low incomes are more likely to be injured in car accidents when compared with car accident victims from more affluent communities. According to the researchers, children are especially susceptible to the economic gap, with children from less well-off neighborhoods being 7.3 times more likely to be hurt as pedestrians in a car accident when compared with children from wealthier communities.
Researchers completed the study by examining neighborhoods in Montreal, Canada by average household income and by comparing traffic accident injuries in each neighborhood between 1999 and 2004. There may be many reasons why lower-income neighborhoods have the troublingly higher rate of car accident injuries, and many of the findings may also be applicable to Miami car accidents:

1) Lower-income neighborhoods may have more traffic. According to the study authors, some lower-income neighborhoods have twice as much traffic and busier streets. While affluent neighborhoods often have residential areas that are well out of the way of noisy traffic, lower-income neighborhoods may have more mixed-use areas and may have more traffic. In Miami, that can mean more Miami traffic accidents.

2) Lower-income neighborhoods have a higher population density. Lower-income areas tend, generally, to have more residents and more businesses, while higher-income areas usually have larger homes, more spaces between buildings, and thus a lower population density. That can mean more people and more cars in low-income areas competing for space, which in turn can mean more congestion and more traffic accidents.

3) Lower-income neighborhoods have residents with less access to cars, meaning that more people walk. According to the study, lower-income pedestrians were 6.6 times more likely to be injured by a vehicle. The study also suggests that Miami bicycle accidents may be a problem in lower-income areas, as cyclists in less affluent neighborhoods were 3.9 times more likely to be injured by a vehicle when compared with cyclists in wealthier areas.

4) Lower-income neighborhoods may be less well funded in terms of signage and infrastructure. Higher-income neighborhoods often have groups dedicated to ensuring that the community stays attractive, with well-paved roads and with correct signage. There may be less pressure on cities to beautify lower-income areas, and higher traffic in these areas can mean that streets are in less pristine condition, paving the way for accidents.


Florida Car Accident Lawyer Blog

A Different View of a DUI Lawyer

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

Because of my views over the years on DUI laws and law enforcement, I’ve grown used to being the target of media, government and social attacks ("How can you defend those drunk drivers!").  So it was a pleasant surprise to read in my hometown newspaper a more flattering account of my views and activities…  

Making a DUI Defendant’s Case

Long Beach, CA.  Sept. 20 — What Lawrence Taylor does for a living doesn’t exactly put him on the side of political correctness.

In fact, he’s at the opposite end of the spectrum from Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

He defends people accused of drunk driving, a lot of them, thousands of them since he began doing so on a full-time basis in 1979.

He acknowledges he’s about as popular with MADD as, say, a liquor salesman is who shows up at an AA meeting preaching the virtues of drinking.

"Those accused as drunk drivers these days are stigmatized almost in the same league as child molesters," says the Long Beach resident.

During his 42 years in the law profession in which he represented the notorious Onion Field killer (Gregory Powell) before the California Supreme Court and was the legal adviser to the judge of the Charles Manson trial (Charles Older), Taylor has been a deputy county counsel, a deputy public defender, a deputy district attorney, an independent special prosecutor and a criminal lawyer.

He has been a professor at the Gonzaga University School of Law, a visiting professor at Pepperdine University and a Fulbright Professor of Law at Osaka University in Japan.

He has been a Marine, a boxer, a triathlete, a football player at San Pedro High and a water polo player at the University of California.

Prolific writer

He has written 14 books, several of them critically acclaimed, including the historical, "A Trial Of Generals (Homma, Yamashita, MacArthur)," the true crime tale "To Honor And Obey," and the legal textbook "Drunk Driving Defense."

It is the latter subject that has been Taylor’s legal focus for more than three decades and that has resulted in his becoming perhaps the most famous, if not most respected, DUI attorney in the country.

He not only has written two books on the subject – the other is called "California Drunk Driving Defense" – but also has lectured on DUI trial techniques and constitutional issues at more than 200 seminars in 38 states and is one of the 13 founders of the National College DUI Defense, which accorded him a Lifetime Achievement Award at a Harvard Law School ceremony in the summer of 2002.

He has been interviewed countless times on NPR, Court TV and other TV outlets, and has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, People, Playboy, the American Bar Association Journal, the Christian Science Monitor and other publications.

He maintains offices in Long Beach, Irvine, Riverside, Pasadena and Brentwood, and his Internet narrative – duiblog.com – has become imperative reading for legal scholars interested in the subject. The blog is the one most visited in the DUI arena on the web.

He has strong opinions on a lot of areas in his field of expertise, but none are more passionate than his withering critique of DUI checkpoints, which have become a familiar weekend evening sight on Pacific Coast Highway in Seal Beach and also are occasionally seen in Long Beach.

"To me, the checkpoints are in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which forbids unlawful searches and seizures," says Taylor. "I know they are permissible under the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling in the Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, a 5-4 ruling that eroded liberty to facilitate a compelling interest in reducing fatalities. Checkpoints would be easier to accept if they actually improved public safety, but most public safety experts acknowledge that traditional policing, in which officers look for drunken drivers while patrolling, is more productive.

"Drunk drivers kill. Those who drink, even a little, have no business getting behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle for the rest of the day. Society needs to eradicate drunk driving, but checkpoints aren’t the answer."

In one of Taylor’s recent blogs, he wrote, in part: "Colorado Springs police detained 1,420 drivers last Saturday in yet another ineffective effort to catch drunken drivers. As a result of detaining thousands and countless passengers, police cited eight – a whopping .56 percent – on suspicion they had driven under the influence.

"Meanwhile, cops working the checkpoints were not on the roads providing legitimate public safety."

The OT factor

He went on to cite a University of California investigation that revealed checkpoints generated more than million in annual overtime income for police officers in California.

"Checkpoints, which are funded with transportation grants, are public relations stunts," wrote Taylor. "Our police are supposed to protect and serve the public, not detain individuals to generate publicity and overtime pay. The fact is that most roadblocks are increasingly a means of illegally using DUI roadblocks to stop vehicles to find minor violations such as equipment violations, expired car registrations and drivers licenses not in possession. As long as local governments continue to rake in desperately needed revenues from these fraudulent police practices, roadblocks will continue."

Naturally, Taylor has a similarly strong aversion to the Breathalyzer and similar tests that police employ on suspects believed to be under the influence of alcohol.

"I’ve seen people blow more than a .08 (the legal limit), and have no alcohol in their system," he says. `The human body is infinitely variable, and the machine assumes that all human bodies have identical characteristics, which they don’t. And then there was another case I once had in which (a) guy accused of drunk driving took a blood test to prove that he hadn’t even had a drink. Well, the blood test came back, and showed a .15 reading. We sent the blood out to be DNA tested by an independent laboratory, and it turned out that it wasn’t even my client’s blood. The police lab had mixed up the tests. We got him off."

A 1959 graduate of San Pedro High, Taylor attended UC Berkeley for a year before deciding to do a hitch in the Marines.

"My time in the Marines was the best thing to happen to me," he says. "All I was doing that first year at Cal was play sports, drink and chase girls."

He later returned to Berkeley, decided to become a lawyer instead of a veterinarian, and wound up graduating from the UCLA Law School in 1969.

"One of my jobs when I was a deputy county counsel was giving legal advice to Judge Charles Older during the Manson trial," says Taylor. "It was on a variety of points, including the gag order he implemented.

"And, after I went into private practice, I was appointed by the State Court of Appeals to represent Gregory Powell, who was convicted of murder and given a death sentence in the `Onion Field’ killing of a Los Angeles cop in a case that was detailed in a best-selling book written by Joseph Wambaugh. Powell’s death sentence got overturned, but not his murder conviction.

"I also later was selected with two other attorneys to serve as an independent special prosecutor in a grand jury investigation of political corruption in Montana that was focused on the governor. I lived in the state’s capital, Helena, for a year."

In 1979, Taylor turned permanently to defending those accused of DUIs.

"To be honest, I just got tired of defending murderers, rapists, thieves and the like," he says. "And I also was concerned about the constitutional and evidentiary issues in regard to blood and breath alcohol tests."

Larry Taylor has lived an active and colorful existence, and has been married four times.

He has been with his current wife Judy, a nationally known consultant in child mentoring programs and, ironically, a teetotaler, for the past 18 years.

"I finally got it right this time," says Taylor, who has a son, Chris Taylor, 32, who is an Orange County public defender.

Well-traveled

The Taylors have a bayfront home in the tony Treasure Island area of Naples, and take exotic vacations – Tanzania, Kenya, Cambodia, Vietnam, Nepal, Galapagos Islands and the Antarctic – throughout the world when they manage to get a few weeks away from their busy schedules.

Taylor, 69, is a fitness devotee who lifts weights, paddleboards, kayaks, cycles and swims regularly across Alamitos Bay to the Peninsula.

He is also similarly committed to what has become his calling in life.

"The same forces that created the Volstead Act and Prohibition in 1919 are doing the same today, but in a more disingenuous manner with checkpoints and Breathalyzers and the continual lowering of the legal blood-alcohol limit," he says. "Now they’re trying to get it down to .05. I was giving a lecture at Harvard a while back, and had my wife come up and blow into a Breathalyzer. She blew a .04. And she’s never had a drink in her life. I’m against drunk driving. I’m also against having our civil liberties curtailed, which is what has been happening with ominous frequency in recent years."

(Thanks to Doug Krikorian.)
 

DUI BLOG