Indiana Injury Lawyers Blog

In a personal injury case, most plaintiffs are seeking damages to compensate them for an injury caused by another party. For example, in a simple car crash an injured driver might seek money from the negligent driver to pay for his medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering. These monetary awards are called compensatory damages as they compensate the injured party for the harm they suffered.

However, with the growing support in the tort reform movement, many jurisdictions have shied away from awarding excess punitive damages and have even placed caps or limits on the amount of punitive damage awards. Like many states, Indiana has adopted its own punitive damage statute that limits both the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded and the amount the plaintiff can receive from the judgment.

Continue reading "Punitive Damage Awards in Indiana" »

When an Indiana insurer fails to pay a claim on a policy, the policy holder has two possible legal remedies: a contract claim and a tort claim. The principle distinction between the two is that, as a matter of public policy, punitive damages are only available in tort claims. Therefore, if an insurer wrongly denies coverage and violates an insurance contract, a breach of contract claim will only allow recovery up to the face value of the policy. However, an Indiana plaintiff can also sue under an insurance bad faith claim and recover, through both compensatory and punitive damages, an amount larger than the original face value of the policy (depending on the egregiousness of the insurer's conduct).

The concept of the insurance tort claim arises out of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing that is recognized in all insurance policies in almost every US jurisdiction. Indiana first recognized an insurer's duty to act in good faith in the 1993 Indiana Supreme Court ruling in Erie Insurance Co. V. Hickman by Smith. Since this ruling, Indiana has been in a constant state of defining and redefining the limits of the bad faith tort claim.

Continue reading "Insurance Bad Faith Claims in Indiana" »

In the wake of over 1,000 lawsuits filed by women who claim to have suffered serious injuries from the effects of birth control pills Yaz and Yasmin, German manufacturer Bayer has updated labelling information on those products regarding the risks of their use. The new information, which was recently approved by the FDA in April, highlights the risk of thromboembolism (blood clots migrating through the venous or arterial system and causing occlusion) in women using Yasmin compared to those in women using oral contraceptives containing other progestins.

A progestin is a steroid hormone used to produce the effect of the female hormone progesterone. Different birth control pills may use different progestins to produce the contraceptive effect. A recent study conducted in the Netherlands, which compared the effects of a variety of oral contraceptives in a population of over 1500 women and was published in the British Medical Journal highlights an increased risk of venous thrombosis for women using all types of birth control compared to women who use no contraception, but observed a 6.3-fold increased risk of thrombosis in women using newer contraceptives composed of the fourth-generation progestin called drospirenone, which is used in Yasmin. Other contraceptives which use the earlier-generation progestin levonorgestrel noticed a smaller increase in risk (3.8-fold).

Continue reading "Bayer updates label warnings for Yaz, Yasmin birth control pills" »

A recent Indiana Supreme Court opinion has clarified the role of an injured party's ability to express opinions about their injury and what a defense medical expert can say about the medical treatment received in an Indiana personal injury case. In Sibbing v. Cave, 2010 WL 744928 (Ind.) the plaintiff, Mrs. Cave, brought suit after she was injured in a motor vehicle collision with the defendant, Mr. Sibbing. Mr. Sibbing admitted liability but argued that Mrs. Cave's injuries were not caused by the crash. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, Mrs. Cave. The defendant, Mr. Sibbing, appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing Mrs. Cave to give her own opinion on the cause of her pain. Mr. Sibbing also argued that the trial court erred by excluding his hired medical expert to testify that the plaintiff really didn't need all the medical treatment she received.

The Indiana Supreme Court found that Mrs. Cave's own opinion as to the cause of her pain qualified as permissible testimony by a lay witness pursuant to Indiana Rule of Evidence 701. Upon direct examination, Mrs. Cave was asked what she believed was causing her pain. She replied that her lower back pain was due to a bulging disk. The defendant objected under Indiana Rule of Evidence 803(4) and 702. The Court, however, found that the Mrs. Cave could describe what she believed to be causing her pain, even if it does include aspects of medical diagnosis.

Continue reading "Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Clarifies the Limitations of Lay Witness and Expert Testimony" »

In Indiana auto accident or large truck accident litigation the potential for a traffic ticket to be admitted into evidence at trial is truly a double edged sword. Evidence of a traffic violation issued against the plaintiff, or lack of a ticket to a defendant, which reaches the jury can destroy your client's credibility and ultimately his or her case. Conversely, getting the judge to let in a traffic violation against the defendant in a hotly disputed liability case can tip the scales in a plaintiff's favor. In order to tackle this issue, consider the following two scenarios.

The presentation of your injured plaintiff's case to the jury has gone well. Your client made a good impression, a witness described a horrendous collision, the doctors described the injury with a clearly understandable precision. Then, the defense calls a police officer to the stand and aks him if he gave out any traffic tickets related to the accident, and the answer is "yes, I cited Mr. Plaintiff for failure to yield." Although you know your client pleaded nolo contendre to the ticket, you can feel the wind go out of your sails as you look at the jury and realize the negative impact a traffic citation has made. While you try to save the day on cross, the jury has already made up their mind that police officers don't give out tickets unless a person broke the law. To them a police officer's testimony about a ticket is the gospel, to you it is the kiss of death for your case.

Continue reading "Traffic Tickets: Admissible Evidence in Personal Injury Litigation?" »

Drywall manufactured in China started appearing as a major player in the home building and renovation business, predominately in the Southeastern U.S., following the hurricane season of 2001.

The Consumer Product Safety Council currently estimates the number of formal filed complaints with them and state agencies to be around 5,000, concentrated primarily in Florida (almost 60%), Louisiana (21%) and a few other southern states. Other sources estimate the number of homes affected in the six figures, although true counts are difficult. The CPSC's investigation is the most expensive in the agency's history.

Continue reading "Chinese drywall under fire for health issues" »

Accidents involving semi trucks can involve legal issues which are quite different from traffic accidents which involve small vehicles and private individuals.

An accident between a large truck and a passenger car is more likely to inflict serious damage such as brain and spinal cord injuries. Such injuries can be extremely costly to the victim and involve extensive recovery and rehabilitation. Currently federal insurance regulations require a far higher level of coverage for an interstate commercial vehicle than state regulations require for passenger cars.

Continue reading "Truck Accidents in Indiana" »

Indiana wrongful death attorneys were pleased to hear of a unanimous ruling in favor of the plaintiff on November 30th in the case of Clay City Consolidated School Corp. v. Ronna Timberman and John Pipes II. With the recent ruling the Indiana State Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's ruling in favor of the family of a boy who died during basketball practice.

Under Indiana law contributory negligence can serve as a complete bar to recovery in a tort claims act case. If a defendant is a medical provider or government institution (as in this case), a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff could prevent any and all recovery of damages. However, because the Supreme Court affirmed the rebuttable presumption for a minor, Kodi was found free of negligence. The appellate court ruling was overturned and the original trial court's ruling was affirmed, allowing the Pipes family to recover damages.

Yasmin and YAZ are two varieties of combination type birth control pills (BCP) produced by Bayer Healthcare. Yasmin was approved for sale in the US by the FDA in 2001 while YAZ was approved in 2006. Both YAZ and Yasmin contain 3 mg of drospirenone, a progestin, which is combined with 30 mcg of ethinyl estradiol in Yasmin and 20 mcg of this estrogen in YAZ. The estrogen component of these BCPs has been in common use since the 1970s. Drospirenone is a relatively new fourth generation progestin which has been shown to have an anti mineralocorticoid effect. This effect leads to diuresis, (increased urination) while retaining potassium which can lead to elevated serum potassium levels (hyperkalemia). It is suspected that this progestin is the cause of a notable increase in certain adverse effects which include death, arrhythmias, venous and arterial blood clots, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, liver or kidney failure, dehydration and hypertension. The serious cardiovascular side effect are markedly increased in those who smoke and with advancing age particularly beyond age 35.