Oklahoma Injury Lawyer Blog

We had a mediation scheduled today at 1:30 p.m. for a wrongful termination case here in Oklahoma City.  Opposing counsel gave me a call late afternoon yesterday to see if we could go ahead and reach a settlement.  We ended up reaching a compromise about 15 minutes ago - that's literally hours before the mediation was to begin.  Props (and a thank you!) to Jake Jones, the mediator we were scheduled with, for not charging us any costs for canceling so late. 

The vast majority of cases settle without going to trial.  Here are some interesting national statistics according to a United States Justice Department study:

• About 97 percent of civil cases are settled or dismissed without a trial
• Plaintiffs won 55 percent of the cases surveyed
• Plaintiffs won less than one-third of medical malpractice trials in 2001

(source: Phoenix Business Journal)

The case that settled today involved a wrongful termination of an employee that was injured at work.  The employer "had to let go" the worker shortly after he was injured at the company.  It is illegal under Oklahoma law (85 O.S. § 5), to fire an employee for initiating, or filing, a worker's compensation claim. 

Today's Washington Post has an article detailing a new law former-president George Bush signed near the end of his term.  The law "designates state inspectors and Medicare and Medicaid contractors as federal employees, a group usually shielded from providing evidence for either side in private litigation."  The law has the effect of forcing plaintiffs to go to greater lengths to get this needed information.  Curiously, the law was signed into effect without any congressional debate or public knowledge. 

This week's Journal Record has an article concerning Rep. Schwarz's effort in refiling House Bill 1725.  An identical bill was vetoed last year. 

The proposed bill requires Oklahoma plaintiffs (i.e. personal injury or medical malpractice victims) filing a professional negligence lawsuit to attach to the petition a "certificate of merit" affidavit.  The affidavit is to attest that the lawsuit has been reviewed by a qualified expert and that the case does in fact have merit.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down a similar law in 2006 because it applied solely to medical professionals.  The law was found unconstitutional because it singled out one kind of profession for special treatment.  In addition, the Court "deemed the certificates of merit an unconstitutional barrier to the courts - obtaining such an opinion could cost as much as $12,000 and create other legal problems." [emphasis added].  The article also states an obvious truth:

Some cases are so obvious they don't require the testimony of an expert witness, yet expert testimony would be required under the law the court struck down.

So why does Schwarz find it necessary to refile an identical bill? 

All this does is drive up the cost of litigation and make it harder for Oklahoma plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit.  Any half-brained lawyer won't bring a lawsuit that they think lacks merit - for the simple fact that they will lose time and money. 

Last week's Oklahoman ran the story, "Against tough odds, Oklahoma seeks uninsured solution."  It details the account of an Oklahoma woman who was injured by an uninsured driver.  She still suffers from the medical bills and scars left from the car accident. The article also includes some startling statistics:

"A study released in January by the Insurance Research Council ranked Oklahoma as the fourth-worst state in the nation for uninsured motorists."

About one in four Oklahoma state drivers don't have insurance.

The article mentions that measures are being discussed to help solve the problem, and that Rep. Faught of Muskogee is introducing a bill to help address this issue.  The bill limits the awards given to uninsured motorists involved in traffic accidents.  The uninsured accident victims would be limited to property and medical loss reimbursements and excluded from pain and suffering damages. 

I doubt this would have any positive influence on uninsured drivers though. 


So what can you do if you are in a car accident with an uninsured motorist (who was at fault)?

Call the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety Financial Responsibility Division at 425-2098 and fill out the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Collision Report.  The DPS can suspend the uninsured's driver's license. 

This is almost always a non-issue.  With I-35 running through our great state, accidents with out-of-staters do happen.

Example:  Someone from Texas rear-ends you here in Oklahoma City.  So, where can you bring a case against someone that doesn't reside in Oklahoma that caused the car accident?

In Oklahoma, "venue" in car accident cases is in the county where any defendant may be served or the accident (damages) occurred.  This means, that in our example, suit could be brought where the accident/injury occurred or where we can get service on the defendant. 

Fletcher Handley, an Oklahoma lawyer that practices mainly plaintiff's personal injury and family law, recently penned a nice editorial for the El Reno Tribune. 

In his "Oklahoma shows no signs of needing corporate protection" article, Mr. Handley emphasizes:

1. Accountability (or the lack thereof with wanting to push through tort reform)
2. Right to Contract
3. Keeping government out of people's lives
4. Corporate Immunity
5. Subsidizing business at the expense of wrongfully injured people
6. Closing the courthouse door to most common people civilly wronged
   

Some great highlights:

This is particularly galling to me, as a lifelong Republican, because the philosophy that promotes this kind of legislation is anything but conservative. It's the "Government Should Control Everything," philosophy. Ronald Reagan never embraced that, and neither do I.

In 2006, when the Tulsa World surveyed likely voters about the important issues facing Oklahoma, lawsuit reform was not among the top 20 issues raised. That's because it simply is not an issue, except to politicians who owe their election, their political existence and maybe their souls to Big Business and Big Insurance.

It's fun to bash lawyers, but your politicians aren't the reason you wear seat belts today, drive cars with gas tanks that don't explode, and work in an environment not contaminated by asbestos. Plaintiffs' attorneys did that. They've gone after big pharmaceutical companies who knowingly market dangerous drugs. That peanut company in Georgia doesn't fear the politicians, they already own them. They fear the plaintiffs' lawyers and what a jury of fair-minded citizens will do to them in court.

The full article is accessible here.

I just got off the phone with a current client.  It looks like he may be moved into the "former-client" category.  The client is obviously frustrated because he's injured and his having trouble finding work.  He wants me to front him some money to pay his living expenses.  The ethics rules for Oklahoma lawyers are absolutely clear on this issue.  Attorneys can't do this.

Rule 1.8 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPC") prohibits certain transactions which might create a conflict of interest between the lawyer and a client. The relevant portions of RPC 1.8 are as follows:

(a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:

1. The transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client;
2. The client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction; and
3. The client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer's role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the transaction.

* * *

(e) A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation, except that:

1. a lawyer may advance court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which may be contingent on the outcome of the matter; and
2. a lawyer representing an indigent client may pay court costs and expenses of litigation on behalf of the client.

So, the moral of the story:  If you want me to violate any Oklahoma lawyer ethics rules, don't bother contacting me.  While I will fight for you in court against an insurance adjuster, I will not, under any circumstances, break any of the Oklahoma lawyer ethics rules.