On Apr 27, 7:02 am, Johnny.An...@gmail.com wrote:
> A bit over a year ago, I was hit by an uninsured motorist in
> Washington State. Being a cheapskate, I did not have uninsured
> motorist property damage on the 10-year-old car I was driving at the
> time. The total cost of repairs was about $3400, of which I paid my
> $2500 collision deductible and the insurance company paid the rest.
>
> This week I got a check in the mail for $550 from my insurance
> company's subrogation department. As I understand it, this is my
> share of their final recovery after deducting collection expenses.
Sounds pretty slim to me, but it may be all that was left after they pursued the guy to get the best recovery they could.
Your insurance only paid $900 toward your repair, and you paid $2500. So, after paying off the lawyer whom the insurer probably hired to pursue the uninsured other guy, you should have gotten the lion's share of whatever they recovered from him. If they got full recovery ($3400), and if the lawyer charged 1/3 plus reasonable expenses for a simple PD case, they should have netted well above $2000, which they would then have to split proportionally with you OR, if your state's subrogation law requires the insurer to be "made whole" before you get one penny of your deductible back, they would take their $900 off the top of their net recovery, and give you the remainder, which should be quite a bit more than you got. OTOH if they settled with the other guy for, say, about half the value of the claim (say, $1800 to make the math easy) the lawyer would take about $600, and the remaining $1200 would be split proportionally between you and the insurer OR they would take their $900 first and give you the rest. So the numbers may be about right.
At least, you are entitled to get a full accounting from your insurance company of how much they actually collected from this guy, and where the settlement dollars went, to show how they got to your bottom line on the $550 check they sent you. If they refuse, you may want to complain to your state's insurance commission and they will investigate. But the upshot may be that you got all you were entitled to.
Keep in mind that your insurance policy (you did read it, right?) almost surely gives your insurance company the right, without your further knowledge or consent, to pursue a claim against the unrelated third party who caused your injury (the uninsured guy) for recovery of BOTH the subrogated amount they paid toward your claim, AND the amount you paid for your deductible. That means that you, the insured, NO LONGER have the right to separately pursue the other guy for anything, IF you make a claim and accept money from your insurer relative to the damage he caused you; the INSURER, instead, has that right to "step into your shoes" and act on your behalf.
> While the insurance company considers the claim closed, from where I
> stand, I am still out of pocket $1,950.
But they SETTLED with the other guy, and/or got a verdict from him, and gave you your share. If it was a compromise settlement, the insurer got less than the full amount they were entitled to receive also. Even if it was a full verdict, they still had to pay the lawyer who represented them AND you in trying to get some money back from this uninsured tortfeasor to reimburse the amount the insurer paid out on your behalf (that's the "subrogation" part) and also to reimburse your deductible.
> Question: am I precluded by the insurer's settlement from pursuing the
> remaining damages myself?
Short answer: YES you are precluded. There are no "remaining" damages. Your claim, along with the insurance company's subrogation claim, was already settled and/or already went to trial and resulted in a verdict, which is why they were able to get some money from this guy and give you some of it. Whatever you got, the case is over. Subject, of course, to my note above that you are entitled to make sure your insurance company gave you your FAIR share of what they recovered, or to complain to the insurance commission if they didn't.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Monday, August 13, 2012
Post-death credit cards issued
On Apr 25, 9:36 am, Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> After my late wife received some preapproved credit card offers, I
> tried to email whatever credit reporting agencies (of the big three)
> had an email contact to tell them my wife had died and to note that on
> her credit record. The only reply I got was a form about temporarily
> putting a freeze on her credit.
You notified the wrong agencies. The credit GRANTING entities (banks, card issuers) are who you should have informed of her death. The credit REPORTING agencies do nothing but collect information FROM CREDIT GRANTORS such as banks and stores, and provide that information to authorized members of the public (those who have a legal right to access her credit history). They can and do accept counter-statements from the person whose credit they are reporting, such as your late wife, if she disagrees with any of the reports provided to them by her creditors, but they can't go and note on someone's credit record that they are dead just because someone who SAYS he's her widower calls them up and says so. To do so would be an open invitation to fraud. OTOH I have no idea whether they would accept and report such a fact if you notified them IN WRITING and included an official copy of her death certificate. It doesn't sound like that's what you did, however.
You should certainly notify all of your late wife's ACTUAL creditors (banks, stores, utilities) that she has died, and ask them to either (a) cancel those accounts (if they are zero balance already) or (b) put them in your name if they are willing to do that. Unless you do (b) they will then put a freeze on NEW extensions of credit, keeping the accounts open only until they are paid in full. The credit REPORTING agencies are not going to notify the various creditors for you.
> Similarly, when I tried to tell my mom's bank that the joint
> cardholder on her account (my dad) was dead, they just about didn't
> want to hear it without written power of attorney.
That's not "similarly"; it's apples and oranges. The bank _is_ an actual creditor, not just a reporting agency. The only part that is similar is that you again attempted to do this by a cold telephone call, where they would have to take your word that you weren't just an anonymous prank caller or a malicious identity thief, rather than in writing with the appropriate documentation attached. As the bank's reply told you, even if they believed you were who you said you were, they can't take YOUR word to make changes on your MOM's account without a written POA from Mom to you, permitting you to do this. OTOH if Mom would just go down to the bank in person with a copy of Dad's death certificate in hand, they can clean it up for her chick-chock and take Dad's name off the account.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> After my late wife received some preapproved credit card offers, I
> tried to email whatever credit reporting agencies (of the big three)
> had an email contact to tell them my wife had died and to note that on
> her credit record. The only reply I got was a form about temporarily
> putting a freeze on her credit.
You notified the wrong agencies. The credit GRANTING entities (banks, card issuers) are who you should have informed of her death. The credit REPORTING agencies do nothing but collect information FROM CREDIT GRANTORS such as banks and stores, and provide that information to authorized members of the public (those who have a legal right to access her credit history). They can and do accept counter-statements from the person whose credit they are reporting, such as your late wife, if she disagrees with any of the reports provided to them by her creditors, but they can't go and note on someone's credit record that they are dead just because someone who SAYS he's her widower calls them up and says so. To do so would be an open invitation to fraud. OTOH I have no idea whether they would accept and report such a fact if you notified them IN WRITING and included an official copy of her death certificate. It doesn't sound like that's what you did, however.
You should certainly notify all of your late wife's ACTUAL creditors (banks, stores, utilities) that she has died, and ask them to either (a) cancel those accounts (if they are zero balance already) or (b) put them in your name if they are willing to do that. Unless you do (b) they will then put a freeze on NEW extensions of credit, keeping the accounts open only until they are paid in full. The credit REPORTING agencies are not going to notify the various creditors for you.
> Similarly, when I tried to tell my mom's bank that the joint
> cardholder on her account (my dad) was dead, they just about didn't
> want to hear it without written power of attorney.
That's not "similarly"; it's apples and oranges. The bank _is_ an actual creditor, not just a reporting agency. The only part that is similar is that you again attempted to do this by a cold telephone call, where they would have to take your word that you weren't just an anonymous prank caller or a malicious identity thief, rather than in writing with the appropriate documentation attached. As the bank's reply told you, even if they believed you were who you said you were, they can't take YOUR word to make changes on your MOM's account without a written POA from Mom to you, permitting you to do this. OTOH if Mom would just go down to the bank in person with a copy of Dad's death certificate in hand, they can clean it up for her chick-chock and take Dad's name off the account.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Worker's Compensation and right of trial by jury?
On Apr 26, 7:11 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> The 7th amendment doesn't say the person being sued has that right but
> simply "the right of trial by jury"
The rest of the sentence: "... shall be preserved". Meaning, if it was something you could get a jury trial for in 1776 under English law, the US government cannot take that right away from you. But the amendment doesn't grant any _additional_ right to a jury trial where such right did not exist at prior English law, such as in "equity" cases (including family law, suits for "reformation" of contracts, wills or deeds, and injunctions). This goes back to an ancient division between (1) the "King's (or Queen's) Bench" which tried criminal law cases (that is, offenses against the Sovereign) and civil suits at law (those where a petitioner is claiming money damages only), and (2) the ecclesiastical (church) courts, which tried all other matters. The difference is preserved in some USA states which still have separate court systems for law and equity, while in others (and in the Federal system) the courts have been merged, but even within a single-court system, the right to jury trial only applies to a matter that arises in law, not in equity.
> and the Federal Rules of Civil
> Procedure do say that ANY party to the dispute may request a jury trial
> for anything in a federal court (criminal cases are different and there
> only the defendant can enforce the right or waive it.)
Well, not quite for ANYthing in civil cases. Only in cases demanding money damages, against a private party, based on common law. There is no right to a jury trial in a federal suit seeking an injunction, or in other matters arising under a specific federal statute unless the statute itself says that it does. Federal Tort Claims Act cases, frex, where a plaintiff is seeking damages at law against the US government for a tort claim, does NOT give claimants the right to a jury trial; the FTCA is a statutory waiver of the government's sovereign immunity, and the sovereign has no peers.
> Now since this is
> a state issue and not a federal issue, the 7th might not apply here (and
> I know the Federal RCP doesn't but the state might have a similar
> provision) or maybe this isn't a "suit at common law."
That may have something to do with it, although I haven't analyzed your approach in detail to see if it holds water. Many of the Bill of Rights amendments have been applied to also limit the State governments, through the operation of the 14th amendment, which does specifically apply to the States.
But more importantly for OP, the Worker's Compensation laws in every state AFAIK do two things: (1) set up a statutory scheme for partial compensation of injured workers without regard to fault; and (2) specifically immunize the employer against tort suits at law by employees. Sure, a plaintiff has a right to jury trial for a tort suit, but, an employee has no right against the employer that he can pursue through a tort suit. Hence, not only no jury trial, no suit period.
But as I mentioned in an earlier post, most states probably do give a right to jury trial on APPEAL of an administrative tribunal's determination of a Worker's Compensation claim under the applicable statute. It's just that to get to that point, you first have to jump through all the right hoops, or "exhaust your administrative remedies"; you can't get a card that lets you bypass "go" and just go directly to suit.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> The 7th amendment doesn't say the person being sued has that right but
> simply "the right of trial by jury"
The rest of the sentence: "... shall be preserved". Meaning, if it was something you could get a jury trial for in 1776 under English law, the US government cannot take that right away from you. But the amendment doesn't grant any _additional_ right to a jury trial where such right did not exist at prior English law, such as in "equity" cases (including family law, suits for "reformation" of contracts, wills or deeds, and injunctions). This goes back to an ancient division between (1) the "King's (or Queen's) Bench" which tried criminal law cases (that is, offenses against the Sovereign) and civil suits at law (those where a petitioner is claiming money damages only), and (2) the ecclesiastical (church) courts, which tried all other matters. The difference is preserved in some USA states which still have separate court systems for law and equity, while in others (and in the Federal system) the courts have been merged, but even within a single-court system, the right to jury trial only applies to a matter that arises in law, not in equity.
> and the Federal Rules of Civil
> Procedure do say that ANY party to the dispute may request a jury trial
> for anything in a federal court (criminal cases are different and there
> only the defendant can enforce the right or waive it.)
Well, not quite for ANYthing in civil cases. Only in cases demanding money damages, against a private party, based on common law. There is no right to a jury trial in a federal suit seeking an injunction, or in other matters arising under a specific federal statute unless the statute itself says that it does. Federal Tort Claims Act cases, frex, where a plaintiff is seeking damages at law against the US government for a tort claim, does NOT give claimants the right to a jury trial; the FTCA is a statutory waiver of the government's sovereign immunity, and the sovereign has no peers.
> Now since this is
> a state issue and not a federal issue, the 7th might not apply here (and
> I know the Federal RCP doesn't but the state might have a similar
> provision) or maybe this isn't a "suit at common law."
That may have something to do with it, although I haven't analyzed your approach in detail to see if it holds water. Many of the Bill of Rights amendments have been applied to also limit the State governments, through the operation of the 14th amendment, which does specifically apply to the States.
But more importantly for OP, the Worker's Compensation laws in every state AFAIK do two things: (1) set up a statutory scheme for partial compensation of injured workers without regard to fault; and (2) specifically immunize the employer against tort suits at law by employees. Sure, a plaintiff has a right to jury trial for a tort suit, but, an employee has no right against the employer that he can pursue through a tort suit. Hence, not only no jury trial, no suit period.
But as I mentioned in an earlier post, most states probably do give a right to jury trial on APPEAL of an administrative tribunal's determination of a Worker's Compensation claim under the applicable statute. It's just that to get to that point, you first have to jump through all the right hoops, or "exhaust your administrative remedies"; you can't get a card that lets you bypass "go" and just go directly to suit.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Can you get a ticket for DUI on a bicycle?
On Apr 26, 7:11 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> Note: Even today, significant parts of the code do not apply to bicycles in
> almost every jurisdiction. E.g. airbags, seatbelts, head/tail lights, turn-
> signals, requirement for driver's license, requirement to carry 'title and
> registration', requirement for liability insurance. etc., etc.
We're going to have to come up with a suitable nickname for Robert in light of his world land speed record bicycle attempt. How about "Flash" Bonomi? 8*)
But I think the discussion was about whether the "rules of the road" portion of the traffic laws apply to bicycles, not whether the entire vehicle code does. The sections you cite apply only to certain kinds of vehicles and certain dates of manufacture, not to _all_ users of the public highways (e.g. a motorcycle does not require airbags or seatbelts). But the "rules of the road" -- who goes first at an intersection, how fast you can go, obeying traffic signals, etc, should apply to everybody, including pedestrians as well as bicycles, kick scooters, etc. That's why a jaywalker can get a ticket.
> Things can get more complicated. The "traffic laws" usually apply only
> to vehicles being operated on "a public street or thoroughfare". Consider
> a drunk cyclist _on_the_sidewalk_.
Why isn't a sidewalk also a public thoroughfare, or a part thereof, if it is built within the area designated as the highway right-of-way? In MD they generally are; the "highway" right-of-way generally extends well beyond each edge of the portion of pavement intended for vehicles. A privately owned walkway, e.g. at a resort or an apartment complex, may be another story. So would a recreational path, which in MD is treated as "parkland" rather than "thoroghfare" and has a whole different set of laws applying.
> Where bicycles are not prohibited
> from the sidewalks, that is. yeah, one can always cite for 'public
> intoxication', or similar. but 'DWI' gets problematic.
As always, "it depends" not only on the specific facts, and the specific language of that state's DUI law, but also on how such law has been customarily interpreted in the common law of that state. There's certainly no constitutional prohibition on applying DUI laws to bicyclists.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> Note: Even today, significant parts of the code do not apply to bicycles in
> almost every jurisdiction. E.g. airbags, seatbelts, head/tail lights, turn-
> signals, requirement for driver's license, requirement to carry 'title and
> registration', requirement for liability insurance. etc., etc.
We're going to have to come up with a suitable nickname for Robert in light of his world land speed record bicycle attempt. How about "Flash" Bonomi? 8*)
But I think the discussion was about whether the "rules of the road" portion of the traffic laws apply to bicycles, not whether the entire vehicle code does. The sections you cite apply only to certain kinds of vehicles and certain dates of manufacture, not to _all_ users of the public highways (e.g. a motorcycle does not require airbags or seatbelts). But the "rules of the road" -- who goes first at an intersection, how fast you can go, obeying traffic signals, etc, should apply to everybody, including pedestrians as well as bicycles, kick scooters, etc. That's why a jaywalker can get a ticket.
> Things can get more complicated. The "traffic laws" usually apply only
> to vehicles being operated on "a public street or thoroughfare". Consider
> a drunk cyclist _on_the_sidewalk_.
Why isn't a sidewalk also a public thoroughfare, or a part thereof, if it is built within the area designated as the highway right-of-way? In MD they generally are; the "highway" right-of-way generally extends well beyond each edge of the portion of pavement intended for vehicles. A privately owned walkway, e.g. at a resort or an apartment complex, may be another story. So would a recreational path, which in MD is treated as "parkland" rather than "thoroghfare" and has a whole different set of laws applying.
> Where bicycles are not prohibited
> from the sidewalks, that is. yeah, one can always cite for 'public
> intoxication', or similar. but 'DWI' gets problematic.
As always, "it depends" not only on the specific facts, and the specific language of that state's DUI law, but also on how such law has been customarily interpreted in the common law of that state. There's certainly no constitutional prohibition on applying DUI laws to bicyclists.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Friday, August 10, 2012
Privilege not to testify
On Apr 23, 7:16 am, Robert <popmu...@att.net> wrote:
> Doesn't a witness to a murder have a legal obligation to testify to
> that murder? I'm thinking of the case of "Busta Rhymes" who by all
> accounts was standing by as his bodyguard was murdered..
No. He could invoke his Constitutional right against self-incrimination ("take the Fifth") unless he was granted immunity in which case he could be compelled to take the stand as a nonparty witness. Whether the prosecutor would want to rely on his testimony in such circumstances is another question.
And no, there is no affirmative obligation to come forward with relevant testimony; there was another thread on that topic here on MLM recently. A whole neighborhood may have witnessed a shooting, but those witnesses commit no crime by failing to come forward, as they often do if intimidated by the perp or by the general atmosphere of violence. OTOH if the prosecutor _does_ subpoena a witness to testify, AFAIK the only legal basis he has to avoid telling what he knows is some form of evidentiary privilege, which would include (frex) the privilege against self-incrimination, the spousal privilege recognized in some states, the various professional-client privileges (doctor, lawyer, priest etc.) or (for Karl Rove and his ilk) a claim of "executive privilege" which may or may not hold water. We'll have to see what SCOTUS says if Congress and the Pres get in a shoving match over this.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> Doesn't a witness to a murder have a legal obligation to testify to
> that murder? I'm thinking of the case of "Busta Rhymes" who by all
> accounts was standing by as his bodyguard was murdered..
No. He could invoke his Constitutional right against self-incrimination ("take the Fifth") unless he was granted immunity in which case he could be compelled to take the stand as a nonparty witness. Whether the prosecutor would want to rely on his testimony in such circumstances is another question.
And no, there is no affirmative obligation to come forward with relevant testimony; there was another thread on that topic here on MLM recently. A whole neighborhood may have witnessed a shooting, but those witnesses commit no crime by failing to come forward, as they often do if intimidated by the perp or by the general atmosphere of violence. OTOH if the prosecutor _does_ subpoena a witness to testify, AFAIK the only legal basis he has to avoid telling what he knows is some form of evidentiary privilege, which would include (frex) the privilege against self-incrimination, the spousal privilege recognized in some states, the various professional-client privileges (doctor, lawyer, priest etc.) or (for Karl Rove and his ilk) a claim of "executive privilege" which may or may not hold water. We'll have to see what SCOTUS says if Congress and the Pres get in a shoving match over this.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Predatory lending, part 2
On Apr 23, 7:15 am, JoniA2 <strickfad...@comcast.net> wrote:
> March 26th, hubby received full Chapter 7 discharge. I, was
> notified, by the court that he received his bankruptcy around the end
> of March. I was relieved we could afford the first NOTE. I was NOT
> aware or NOTIFIED he surrendered our marital property. April 9th, I
> learned his bankruptcy was contingent on filing for divorce plus
> signing a bachelor Condo lease. He LIED and told the court we were
> separated, in February but in fact we were NOT separated or I new
> anything at all until after his chapter 7 discharge. He moved out
> April 9th and filed for DIVORCE, April12th. I was not notified of the
> divorce and we can pay the first mortgage to keep our home
<snipped stuff about how the loan and deed got made>
Well, this changes my reply to your previous post a bit. You do know that on a moderated newsgroup, it takes awhile to get a response, right? But this new thread you posted has a lot more info than the cryptic first one you posted, that I responded to a short while ago this morning after reading it but before reading this one, although the moderator put this up on the board at the same time as your other thread on predatory lending foreclosure.
If you were in fact aware of and/or involved in all these various processes in any degree, the outcome will be very fact-specific and to get anything approaching a definitive answer, you really ought to consult a local real estate, family law, and bankruptcy lawyer (try to find one person who can handle all 3 issues otherwise you will have a lot of wasted money and energy getting the same result with 3 lawyers). I still don't know whether you have a case or not, but with around a million dollars at stake, WHY on earth are you wasting your time consulting random strangers on a Usenet newsgroup instead of dialing your lawyer, or finding one if you don't have one already?
> How do I get his bankruptcy "set aside" to save my home?
I'm not sure either is possible. But waiting another minute before taking steps toward an appointment with a local lawyer to whom you can explain the entire situation and get real advice, would be extremely foolish. Please do so, and I wish you good luck. Regards,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> March 26th, hubby received full Chapter 7 discharge. I, was
> notified, by the court that he received his bankruptcy around the end
> of March. I was relieved we could afford the first NOTE. I was NOT
> aware or NOTIFIED he surrendered our marital property. April 9th, I
> learned his bankruptcy was contingent on filing for divorce plus
> signing a bachelor Condo lease. He LIED and told the court we were
> separated, in February but in fact we were NOT separated or I new
> anything at all until after his chapter 7 discharge. He moved out
> April 9th and filed for DIVORCE, April12th. I was not notified of the
> divorce and we can pay the first mortgage to keep our home
<snipped stuff about how the loan and deed got made>
Well, this changes my reply to your previous post a bit. You do know that on a moderated newsgroup, it takes awhile to get a response, right? But this new thread you posted has a lot more info than the cryptic first one you posted, that I responded to a short while ago this morning after reading it but before reading this one, although the moderator put this up on the board at the same time as your other thread on predatory lending foreclosure.
If you were in fact aware of and/or involved in all these various processes in any degree, the outcome will be very fact-specific and to get anything approaching a definitive answer, you really ought to consult a local real estate, family law, and bankruptcy lawyer (try to find one person who can handle all 3 issues otherwise you will have a lot of wasted money and energy getting the same result with 3 lawyers). I still don't know whether you have a case or not, but with around a million dollars at stake, WHY on earth are you wasting your time consulting random strangers on a Usenet newsgroup instead of dialing your lawyer, or finding one if you don't have one already?
> How do I get his bankruptcy "set aside" to save my home?
I'm not sure either is possible. But waiting another minute before taking steps toward an appointment with a local lawyer to whom you can explain the entire situation and get real advice, would be extremely foolish. Please do so, and I wish you good luck. Regards,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Pre-arrest right to remain silent
On Apr 14, 7:55 am, patrick.20...@gmail.com wrote:
> I understand that one can invoke their right to silence in the face of
> police arrest or formal interrogation, but I require information about
> one's rights regarding on-scene police questioning before any arrest
> occurs.
Others have ably addressed the many specific collateral issues raised by your hypothetical domestic-violence scenario, which I have snipped, but I can't see where anyone has gone right at your basic question, re: the right to silence even before an arrest.
I beg to differ with esteemed commentator Stan on whether a right to silence differs between Canada and USA. On the one hand, he is right that the precise parameters of what conduct is required of the police do differ, because of divergent court interpretations over the years since both countries began developing their branches of the common law separately from its English roots. In essence, though, the right to remain silent is a necessary corollary of the right to avoid self-incrimination, a right that goes back probably to the Magna Carta, and certainly at least to the time of Sir Thomas More in the 1500s. This from the British Library's website, a translation of the Great Charter into modern English (the original, like its title, was in Latin):
"(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it."
See, http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation.html
IMO that was the first time in history that the government (i.e. the King) limited itself in this way, so that an accused person could not be convicted of a crime upon the accused's own unsupported statement. While the principle (still valid) acknowledges that if one _does_ make a statement, that statement can be used as evidence, a confession uncorroborated by other evidence (either testimonial or circumstantial) is generally not sufficient to support a conviction. But I digress. The point is, a corollary of this Magna Carta right is the right _not_ to make such a statement: since such a statement alone would be insufficient to convict, the refusal to make a statement (itself a form of statement) would also be insufficient to convict of any crime. I do not know whether any English jurist or lawyer actually made that connection until the accusation and trial of Thomas More, 3 centuries later.
More is the famous lawyer, royal chancellor, dear friend of the King and (to Catholics) saint, who invoked his right to remain silent when tried for treason because he did not support King Henry VIII's attempted divorce from his first wife -- being as all England was, at the time, Catholic, and the Pope would not allow the divorce (catch Paul Scofield in the 1966 movie "A Man For All Seasons" if you don't know the story). More lost his head anyway, a martyr to the Catholic cause, but that was after a kangaroo trial where his rights were trampled; he, as one of the foremost lawyers of his era, clearly knew at that point in history that the right of an accused to maintain silence in the face of official questioning was already an established principle of English law. And More had never spoken one treasonous word against the King; his only "crime" was in failing to affirmatively avow his support of the divorce, a statement that would have violated his conscience by requiring him to renounce the authority of the Pope.
> Here's my question: Can the husband, at this point, invoke his right
> to silence despite the fact he's not been formally arrested?
Yes. The right to silence has nothing to do with whether or not the suspect has already been arrested or formally accused of anything. I'm guessing that OP is misreading the basis of the "Miranda warnings" required by USA law to infer that such rights did not exist in USA before the Miranda decision in 1966, and that now, after SCOTUS decided the Miranda case, such rights only apply after arrest. Both premises would be wrong.
In fact, the Miranda court acknowledged that the right to silence, the right to consult a lawyer before answering, and all the other "Miranda Rights" already existed, from Constitutional and common law sources, and simply ruled that unless the police _informed_ the suspect he had those rights before questioning him after taking him into custody, they could not use any of the statements he made during custodial interrogation as evidence against him. That is a very different matter from thinking that the rights did not exist until SCOTUS brought them into being whole cloth and from thinking that even now, they do not apply until after arrest.
> How
> should he respond to the officer if he wishes not to incriminate
> himself?
Others have provided numerous suggestions that ably answer that part of your question, to which my additions would be superfluous.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> I understand that one can invoke their right to silence in the face of
> police arrest or formal interrogation, but I require information about
> one's rights regarding on-scene police questioning before any arrest
> occurs.
Others have ably addressed the many specific collateral issues raised by your hypothetical domestic-violence scenario, which I have snipped, but I can't see where anyone has gone right at your basic question, re: the right to silence even before an arrest.
I beg to differ with esteemed commentator Stan on whether a right to silence differs between Canada and USA. On the one hand, he is right that the precise parameters of what conduct is required of the police do differ, because of divergent court interpretations over the years since both countries began developing their branches of the common law separately from its English roots. In essence, though, the right to remain silent is a necessary corollary of the right to avoid self-incrimination, a right that goes back probably to the Magna Carta, and certainly at least to the time of Sir Thomas More in the 1500s. This from the British Library's website, a translation of the Great Charter into modern English (the original, like its title, was in Latin):
"(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it."
See, http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation.html
IMO that was the first time in history that the government (i.e. the King) limited itself in this way, so that an accused person could not be convicted of a crime upon the accused's own unsupported statement. While the principle (still valid) acknowledges that if one _does_ make a statement, that statement can be used as evidence, a confession uncorroborated by other evidence (either testimonial or circumstantial) is generally not sufficient to support a conviction. But I digress. The point is, a corollary of this Magna Carta right is the right _not_ to make such a statement: since such a statement alone would be insufficient to convict, the refusal to make a statement (itself a form of statement) would also be insufficient to convict of any crime. I do not know whether any English jurist or lawyer actually made that connection until the accusation and trial of Thomas More, 3 centuries later.
More is the famous lawyer, royal chancellor, dear friend of the King and (to Catholics) saint, who invoked his right to remain silent when tried for treason because he did not support King Henry VIII's attempted divorce from his first wife -- being as all England was, at the time, Catholic, and the Pope would not allow the divorce (catch Paul Scofield in the 1966 movie "A Man For All Seasons" if you don't know the story). More lost his head anyway, a martyr to the Catholic cause, but that was after a kangaroo trial where his rights were trampled; he, as one of the foremost lawyers of his era, clearly knew at that point in history that the right of an accused to maintain silence in the face of official questioning was already an established principle of English law. And More had never spoken one treasonous word against the King; his only "crime" was in failing to affirmatively avow his support of the divorce, a statement that would have violated his conscience by requiring him to renounce the authority of the Pope.
> Here's my question: Can the husband, at this point, invoke his right
> to silence despite the fact he's not been formally arrested?
Yes. The right to silence has nothing to do with whether or not the suspect has already been arrested or formally accused of anything. I'm guessing that OP is misreading the basis of the "Miranda warnings" required by USA law to infer that such rights did not exist in USA before the Miranda decision in 1966, and that now, after SCOTUS decided the Miranda case, such rights only apply after arrest. Both premises would be wrong.
In fact, the Miranda court acknowledged that the right to silence, the right to consult a lawyer before answering, and all the other "Miranda Rights" already existed, from Constitutional and common law sources, and simply ruled that unless the police _informed_ the suspect he had those rights before questioning him after taking him into custody, they could not use any of the statements he made during custodial interrogation as evidence against him. That is a very different matter from thinking that the rights did not exist until SCOTUS brought them into being whole cloth and from thinking that even now, they do not apply until after arrest.
> How
> should he respond to the officer if he wishes not to incriminate
> himself?
Others have provided numerous suggestions that ably answer that part of your question, to which my additions would be superfluous.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Predatory loan fraud?
On Apr 23, 7:15 am, JoniA2 <strickfad...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Flagstar predatory loan plus inflated appraisal. full doc app -2004
> tax return $66,000. However, application says hubby makes $14000 per
> month-FRAUD. 2005 house appraisal 1 million, Sept 2006-$475,000 less
> today. Hubby NOW bankrupt, filed for divorce - properties surrendered
> or in foreclosure! HELP!
First, you need to be clear what is it you are trying to accomplish. Get out from under debt? Save the house? Get money from your ex because he screwed up? Do a kind favor for the mortgage lender? I assume in all of this you had no part except as a resident of the house, and you feel you are an innocent victim. But what, really, have you lost? If hubby's bad real estate investment went awry, that's his fault, not the lender's. If he overstated his income to qualify for the loan, that's him defrauding the bank, not the other way around, even if the bank should have known better but "winked" at the fraud to close the deal. Get your facts straight.
> I am on the deed and mortgage but NOT the NOTES ...1st or 2nd
I would say, that's probably a GOOD thing. That means you're probably not liable for the ex-husband's debt.
> Need lawyer to fight Flagstar....
I'm at a loss to see what claim you have, but maybe that's just me. By all means ask around and see if you can find a lawyer in your area who believes you may have a case-- don't take my word for it.
You are a spouse who was given a gratuitous joint interest in a house your husband bought at an inflated price during a "real estate bubble" by overstating his income to the lender. The house is now worth less, but not worthless. If you want to keep it, you will have to continue paying the mortgage on it. As it is, even if the lender forecloses, they will only get a fraction of the money they loaned to your ex to purchase it. If you chose to keep up the payments, you would be making payments on a loan of a million dollars to keep a house worth less than half that. It doesn't make economic sense to me that you would want to do that.
Since you are not on the note -- and most residential mortgages these days are "non-recourse" loans anyway, meaning the lender can only look to the collateral in the event of foreclosure and cannot sue the debtor for a deficiency balance if the collateral is worth less than the loan -- you are already free to simply walk away from the deal and start over with no baggage. That would be my suggestion, as to both the house and the hubby if I understand your facts right. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> Flagstar predatory loan plus inflated appraisal. full doc app -2004
> tax return $66,000. However, application says hubby makes $14000 per
> month-FRAUD. 2005 house appraisal 1 million, Sept 2006-$475,000 less
> today. Hubby NOW bankrupt, filed for divorce - properties surrendered
> or in foreclosure! HELP!
First, you need to be clear what is it you are trying to accomplish. Get out from under debt? Save the house? Get money from your ex because he screwed up? Do a kind favor for the mortgage lender? I assume in all of this you had no part except as a resident of the house, and you feel you are an innocent victim. But what, really, have you lost? If hubby's bad real estate investment went awry, that's his fault, not the lender's. If he overstated his income to qualify for the loan, that's him defrauding the bank, not the other way around, even if the bank should have known better but "winked" at the fraud to close the deal. Get your facts straight.
> I am on the deed and mortgage but NOT the NOTES ...1st or 2nd
I would say, that's probably a GOOD thing. That means you're probably not liable for the ex-husband's debt.
> Need lawyer to fight Flagstar....
I'm at a loss to see what claim you have, but maybe that's just me. By all means ask around and see if you can find a lawyer in your area who believes you may have a case-- don't take my word for it.
You are a spouse who was given a gratuitous joint interest in a house your husband bought at an inflated price during a "real estate bubble" by overstating his income to the lender. The house is now worth less, but not worthless. If you want to keep it, you will have to continue paying the mortgage on it. As it is, even if the lender forecloses, they will only get a fraction of the money they loaned to your ex to purchase it. If you chose to keep up the payments, you would be making payments on a loan of a million dollars to keep a house worth less than half that. It doesn't make economic sense to me that you would want to do that.
Since you are not on the note -- and most residential mortgages these days are "non-recourse" loans anyway, meaning the lender can only look to the collateral in the event of foreclosure and cannot sue the debtor for a deficiency balance if the collateral is worth less than the loan -- you are already free to simply walk away from the deal and start over with no baggage. That would be my suggestion, as to both the house and the hubby if I understand your facts right. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
First Amendment free speech scope
On Apr 22, 7:40 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:32:51 -0400 from Seth <s...@panix.com>:
>
> > In article <4eke23d016dkaept3esj73gja5b1k06...@4ax.com>,
> > <trav...@superiorelectricaldesigns.com> wrote:
>
> > >Can I call the at fault party's insurance company and request a
> > >settlement for my injury?
>
> > The First Amendment says that you can.
>
> Really? Can you quote, please, the exact words that buttress your
> claim?
I read Trav's post as being slightly tongue in cheek. He is saying the First Am. prevents government from passing any law that imposes a general prior restraint of the right of free speech, i.e. that criminalizes certain speech before it is uttered, absent proof of a compelling government interest in such restraint in a particular context. Thus, no law prevents OP from picking up the phone and making such a demand of his insurance company. As I'm frequently fond of saying, "there's no harm in asking." That doesn't mean he's going to _get_ such a settlement, or even that the company has to, or will, listen to what he has to say, as opposed to hanging up on him as a crank caller.
> As far as I can see, the First Amendment gives you the right to speak
> anything that the government may or may not want to hear, but it does
> not give you the right to speak to any private party.
The First Am. does give OP the right to speak anywhere and to anyone without prior censorship of what OP is going to say, but it doesn't shield OP from the consequences of saying it, if his words could produce legally disfavored results -- e.g. fighting words, defamatory words, legally obscene (not merely indecent or vulgar) words, inciting to riot, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no such fire. The government, i.e. the law, thus cannot generally prevent OP and others from talking to anyone they want.
The only exception I'm aware of, allowing such prior restraint in a particular case, is if OP has acted similarly in the past and if the objects of OP's attention have sued for an injunction and have proven to the satisfaction of a court of law that OP's conduct amounts to stalking or harassing them. If the persons to whom OP wishes to speak have thus obtained a restraining order forbidding such behavior on his part in the future based on their proof of his pattern of objectionable past behavior, then yes, in that limited case the government can legally impose a prior restraint on a given person's future speech without violating the First Amendment.
But the government also cannot compel the intended target of OP's communications to pay him any attention, much less any money. I think that is what Trav was getting at, in his oblique way.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:32:51 -0400 from Seth <s...@panix.com>:
>
> > In article <4eke23d016dkaept3esj73gja5b1k06...@4ax.com>,
> > <trav...@superiorelectricaldesigns.com> wrote:
>
> > >Can I call the at fault party's insurance company and request a
> > >settlement for my injury?
>
> > The First Amendment says that you can.
>
> Really? Can you quote, please, the exact words that buttress your
> claim?
I read Trav's post as being slightly tongue in cheek. He is saying the First Am. prevents government from passing any law that imposes a general prior restraint of the right of free speech, i.e. that criminalizes certain speech before it is uttered, absent proof of a compelling government interest in such restraint in a particular context. Thus, no law prevents OP from picking up the phone and making such a demand of his insurance company. As I'm frequently fond of saying, "there's no harm in asking." That doesn't mean he's going to _get_ such a settlement, or even that the company has to, or will, listen to what he has to say, as opposed to hanging up on him as a crank caller.
> As far as I can see, the First Amendment gives you the right to speak
> anything that the government may or may not want to hear, but it does
> not give you the right to speak to any private party.
The First Am. does give OP the right to speak anywhere and to anyone without prior censorship of what OP is going to say, but it doesn't shield OP from the consequences of saying it, if his words could produce legally disfavored results -- e.g. fighting words, defamatory words, legally obscene (not merely indecent or vulgar) words, inciting to riot, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no such fire. The government, i.e. the law, thus cannot generally prevent OP and others from talking to anyone they want.
The only exception I'm aware of, allowing such prior restraint in a particular case, is if OP has acted similarly in the past and if the objects of OP's attention have sued for an injunction and have proven to the satisfaction of a court of law that OP's conduct amounts to stalking or harassing them. If the persons to whom OP wishes to speak have thus obtained a restraining order forbidding such behavior on his part in the future based on their proof of his pattern of objectionable past behavior, then yes, in that limited case the government can legally impose a prior restraint on a given person's future speech without violating the First Amendment.
But the government also cannot compel the intended target of OP's communications to pay him any attention, much less any money. I think that is what Trav was getting at, in his oblique way.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Worker's compensation dispute
On Apr 22, 7:40 am, dgain...@hotmail.com wrote:
{OP was injured on the job, was given narcotic medication for pain so he could continue to work, and injured himself a second time apparently due to his mental state while working under the influence of pain meds}
> It has been about 3 yrs. since my accident.
Which one? The broken rib, or the second one where you dropped the oil drum on your foot? Have you consulted a local attorney at any time within those 3 years? I don't know what the statute of limitations is on your potential claims but you may be dangerously close to losing whatever rights you may have, if it is not already too late due to your own delay in pursuing those rights. By all means you should telephone or make an appointment with a local Worker's Compensation attorney NOW -- I mean it -- before you do anything else. Another day's delay could result in complete loss of any rights you may have had. Or it may not, but why take the risk?
> I Thank my God the
> Veteran's Administration did not turn there back on me. They are
> giving me my injections and I am trying to get back to work,
That is totally separate from any Worker's Compensation rights you might have against the employer you were working for. The VA is simply providing you medical benefits because you are a veteran, and has nothing to do with whether your rights to compensation from your employer have been met or not.
> Anyway, according
> to the Worker's Compensation Act in the state of Georgia I DO NOT even
> have the right to a JURY TRIAL. IS THIS WHAT "LIBERTY AND JUSTICE
> FOR ALL" means???
I don't know the particulars of GA law, but the basic concept of Worker's Compensation law in all USA states is to set up a statutory plan that requires the employer and/or its insurer to provide compensation for the medical expenses and loss of wages an employee incur from on-the-job injuries WITHOUT REGARD TO FAULT, and in return takes away the workers' right to sue the employer for intangible "pain and suffering" tort damages above and beyond those out-of-pocket expenses. Previously to such laws, many injured employees were left crippled and uncompensated because they could not prove, in a tort claim, that the employer was in any way negligent in causing their injuries (as in your case, where you apparently dropped the oil drum on your own foot). The idea is to compensate employees for their injuries even if it is their own fault, but to limit such compensation to actual out-of-pocket losses, and thus give a little and take a little from each side to reach a fair compromise. These laws that arose during the Progressive Era of industrial reform are now about a century old, and courts have long upheld the statutory plan as constitutional and fair because it provides a guarantee of compensation on the basis of objecive values set forth in the statutory scheme in exchange for the employees' right to jury trial of a tort claim.
Again, GA may differ, but the idea is that, first off, most WC claims are supposed to be paid directly by the employer and/or insurer without any other legal involvement at all. Did your employer pay for your medical treatment (other than what you received from the VA)? Did they compensate your lost wages (usually at a slightly reduced percentage, typically 85% or so of your usual rate) during the time you were medically excused from being able to work? If so, there is no further claim you can pursue against them; they have met their obligations under the statutory plan.
If the employer did not already pay your medical expenses and lost wages, any disputes arising from a WC claim are then supposed to be directed to a separate administrative commission set up to deal with WC issues, not to the general-purpose court system. Have you been through that second layer of process? Did you have an attorney do that for you? Your post leaves out many important details.
Finally, if you are not satisfied with the results of a WC hearing before the special commissioners, most states AFAIK do give either party (the employee as well as the employer) a right of appeal to a court of general jurisdiction. That is a general principle of administrative law (the right of appeal to a judicial tribunal from an unfavorable result before an administrative tribunal) that applies equally in the WC context. That is where you will finally get your jury trial, if you have not already gotten satisfaction at an earlier stage.
> I don't know who to ask,
Really? You really don't know that you should ask a local lawyer this question? That is who can answer all your concerns. If you live close enough to a major manufacturing plant to have a job there, it is a big enough community that it probably has several lawyers who represent claimants in Worker's Compensation cases. Ask your friends who have been injured on the job who they have used to represent them when they had a dispute with the employer -- surely you know someone else who has had an on-the-job injury. If you don't, look in the yellow pages or your favorite online phonebook under "lawyers" for one who says he does Worker's Compensation cases. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
{OP was injured on the job, was given narcotic medication for pain so he could continue to work, and injured himself a second time apparently due to his mental state while working under the influence of pain meds}
> It has been about 3 yrs. since my accident.
Which one? The broken rib, or the second one where you dropped the oil drum on your foot? Have you consulted a local attorney at any time within those 3 years? I don't know what the statute of limitations is on your potential claims but you may be dangerously close to losing whatever rights you may have, if it is not already too late due to your own delay in pursuing those rights. By all means you should telephone or make an appointment with a local Worker's Compensation attorney NOW -- I mean it -- before you do anything else. Another day's delay could result in complete loss of any rights you may have had. Or it may not, but why take the risk?
> I Thank my God the
> Veteran's Administration did not turn there back on me. They are
> giving me my injections and I am trying to get back to work,
That is totally separate from any Worker's Compensation rights you might have against the employer you were working for. The VA is simply providing you medical benefits because you are a veteran, and has nothing to do with whether your rights to compensation from your employer have been met or not.
> Anyway, according
> to the Worker's Compensation Act in the state of Georgia I DO NOT even
> have the right to a JURY TRIAL. IS THIS WHAT "LIBERTY AND JUSTICE
> FOR ALL" means???
I don't know the particulars of GA law, but the basic concept of Worker's Compensation law in all USA states is to set up a statutory plan that requires the employer and/or its insurer to provide compensation for the medical expenses and loss of wages an employee incur from on-the-job injuries WITHOUT REGARD TO FAULT, and in return takes away the workers' right to sue the employer for intangible "pain and suffering" tort damages above and beyond those out-of-pocket expenses. Previously to such laws, many injured employees were left crippled and uncompensated because they could not prove, in a tort claim, that the employer was in any way negligent in causing their injuries (as in your case, where you apparently dropped the oil drum on your own foot). The idea is to compensate employees for their injuries even if it is their own fault, but to limit such compensation to actual out-of-pocket losses, and thus give a little and take a little from each side to reach a fair compromise. These laws that arose during the Progressive Era of industrial reform are now about a century old, and courts have long upheld the statutory plan as constitutional and fair because it provides a guarantee of compensation on the basis of objecive values set forth in the statutory scheme in exchange for the employees' right to jury trial of a tort claim.
Again, GA may differ, but the idea is that, first off, most WC claims are supposed to be paid directly by the employer and/or insurer without any other legal involvement at all. Did your employer pay for your medical treatment (other than what you received from the VA)? Did they compensate your lost wages (usually at a slightly reduced percentage, typically 85% or so of your usual rate) during the time you were medically excused from being able to work? If so, there is no further claim you can pursue against them; they have met their obligations under the statutory plan.
If the employer did not already pay your medical expenses and lost wages, any disputes arising from a WC claim are then supposed to be directed to a separate administrative commission set up to deal with WC issues, not to the general-purpose court system. Have you been through that second layer of process? Did you have an attorney do that for you? Your post leaves out many important details.
Finally, if you are not satisfied with the results of a WC hearing before the special commissioners, most states AFAIK do give either party (the employee as well as the employer) a right of appeal to a court of general jurisdiction. That is a general principle of administrative law (the right of appeal to a judicial tribunal from an unfavorable result before an administrative tribunal) that applies equally in the WC context. That is where you will finally get your jury trial, if you have not already gotten satisfaction at an earlier stage.
> I don't know who to ask,
Really? You really don't know that you should ask a local lawyer this question? That is who can answer all your concerns. If you live close enough to a major manufacturing plant to have a job there, it is a big enough community that it probably has several lawyers who represent claimants in Worker's Compensation cases. Ask your friends who have been injured on the job who they have used to represent them when they had a dispute with the employer -- surely you know someone else who has had an on-the-job injury. If you don't, look in the yellow pages or your favorite online phonebook under "lawyers" for one who says he does Worker's Compensation cases. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)