Posted by rozeklawoffice on July 16, 2011 under General | 
Jamie Leigh Jones Testifies Before Congress
The recently concluded rape trial of Jamie Leigh Jones is a textbook example of how large corporations escape responsibility from wrongdoing by attacking their victims. Instead of the trial being focused on the character of KBR and the alleged rapist, firefighter Charles Boartz, the trial was focused on the character of the victim, Jamie Leigh Jones.
KBR, a former Haliburton subsidiary, has a despicable track record which includes lawsuits ranging from poisoning its employees with unsafe drinking water, food and hazardous fumes to using shipping containers that were previously used to haul dead bodies for ice that was served to soldiers to storing 1,000 asian men in a warehouse with 12 toilets. However, the jury didn’t hear about these stories during the trial. There is also the story behind the alleged rapist, Charles Boartz, who had several run-ins with the law concerning domestic violence reports. However, the trial did not focus on the character of Charles Boartz.
Instead, the attorneys defending KBR and Boartz focused the entire trial on the victim, Jamie Leigh Jones. This is not surprising. It is taught on the first day of Defending Large Corporations 101. Civil Defense Attorneys make a living by helping large corporations escape responsibility by trying to discredit innocent victims. In this case, Jamie Leigh Jones happened to be their target because she courageously stood up against KBR in an effort to protect other innocent women from being raped at the hands of KBR employees and contractors.
Despite ignorant news media reports, the Texas jury did NOTfind that Jamie Leigh Jones was not raped. They simply didn’t find enough evidence that it happened the way Jamie Leigh Jones reported. This is very convenient for KBR, since they initially controlled most of the evidence of the rape. Also fortunate for KBR is the fact that Jamie Leigh Jones was drugged and cannot remember the details of the actual rape. The jury also had a hard time reconciling all of the evidence, which unsurprisingly contained many inconsistencies, many of which were bought and paid through KBR’s experts. For example, KBR hired several experts to go through all of Jamie Leigh’s past medical and psychological records with a fine tooth comb and then regurgitate certain excerpts to portray Jamie Leigh as someone that was unbalanced before the alleged rape. They also hired a substance use psychiatrist, Thomas Kosten, M.D., to testify that Jamie Leigh Jones had 5 drinks over 3 hours which caused her amnesia for the actual incident. Seriously, 5 drinks over 3 hours rendered her completely amnestic as to the rape by several men which left her with bruising as well as vaginal and anal fissures. Unfortunately, the Texas jury was not intelligent enough to see through this ridiculous defense. It also was wonderful for KBR that they were able to delay the trial for years by attempting to force Jamie Leigh to arbitrate her case instead of present it to a jury, a fight won by Jamie Leigh but after two years of appeals and federal legislation introduced by Senator Al Franken.
Perhaps most damaging was the military doctor that examined Jamie Leigh Jones after the incident. Dr. Jodi Schultz wouldn’t offer an opinion that Jamie Leigh’s physical injuries were consistent with being raped. This is absurd. As a military doctor, Dr. Schultz is likely trained to keep soldiers from dying, not to determine whether a patient has been raped. That being said, to not offer an opinion that bruising and vaginal and anal fissures are consistent with rape is difficult to justify. Considering the importance of Dr. Schultz’s opinion in Jamie Leigh’s life, she may want to educate herself concerning the physical symptoms of non-consensual sex.
Fortunately for Jamie Leigh there appears to be several appealable issues which ideally will allow her another trial. Unfortunately, it will likely take years to obtain another day in court. Jamie Leigh’s bravery and perseverance is beyond reproach and she has been a role model for so many other victims, it would be a shame if she were to give up now.
Posted by rozeklawoffice on December 1, 2010 under General |
Texting While Driving In Wisconsin Now Banned
Congratulations to Wisconsin for becoming the 30th state to ban texting while driving an automobile. The ban became effective today, December 1, 2010. The ban also applies to emailing while driving. The law is a “primary” enforcement law, which means police officers can stop drivers if they are suspected of texting while driving. Drivers convicted of composing an email or a texting a message while operating an automobile can face fines from $20 to $400 and could lose up to four points.
The new law was enacted in response to many recent studies that have shown the dangers of texting while driving. Experts have confirmed the existence of three main elements to distracted driving:
The first, Visual Distraction, is physically taking your eyes off the road. The second, Manual Distraction, is physically taking your hands off the wheel. And the third, Cognitive Distraction, is taking your mind off of what you are attempting to do at the time. Unfortunately, texting or emailing while driving involves all three elements of distracted driving, which can be deadly. Conservative estimates have shown that each year approximately 6,000 people die and another 500,000 are injured each year automobile crashes due to some type of distracted driving.Other studies have likened texting while driving to the equivalent of being intoxicated while driving.The problem of distracted driving is such a major public health concern that the federal government has created a website to educating the public about the dangers of driving while distracted. See distraction.gov.
Many feel the new Wisconsin ban on texting or email while driving does not go far enough because it does not ban reading texts or emails while driving. The other obvious problem is enforcement of the law, which may prove difficult if not impossible to enforce, since talking on a cell phone is still legal.
______________________________________________________________
If you have been injured due to a distracted driver, you can find more information here: Wisconsin Car Accidents.
Posted by rozeklawoffice on August 21, 2010 under General |
My friend and fellow trial lawyer Steve Gursten of Michigan recently contacted me regarding a significant change in Michigan personal injury law. In the August 1, 2010, Michigan Supreme Court case of McCormick v. Carrier the court restored the rights of those who sustained serious injury in Michigan car accidents. The recent case overturned a prior 2004 Michigan Supreme Court decision that prevented hundreds if not thousands of seriously injured Michigan auto accident victims from pursuing a claim for the full extent of their harms and losses, specifically pain and suffering claims. The new decision redefines what is to be considered a “serious impairment of body function.” The old law only allowed claims for the most devastating of injuries. Michigan was long considered one of the worst places to be injured in an auto accident because the old law violated the civil rights of auto accident victims, except in most severe of injury cases.
For a detailed analysis of the decision see McCormick v. Carrier and its effect on Michigan auto law requirements.
Follow this link for a detailed explanation of Michigan Auto Accident Law.
If you or a loved one have been injured in Michigan, I strongly suggest you contact Attorney Gursten to determine whether you have a claim.
Posted by rozeklawoffice on May 10, 2010 under General |
The legal term “subrogation” refers to the health insurance carrier’s right to get reimbursed for payments they made for an injured person’s health care, when that injured person recovers money from a third party.
The rationale behind subrogation is that if an injured person is allowed to recover all of his/her health care expenses from the at-fault insurance company, but those bills have already been paid by the injured person’s health insurance carrier, they are getting paid twice for the medical bills incurred in the accident, once by the at-fault insurance company and once by their health insurance company via payment of the medical bills.
Many states do not allow reimbursement to the health insurance carrier from injury victim’s settlements; however, Wisconsin law allows it. I strongly disagree with the concept that the health insurance be reimbursed. After all, why do we pay health insurance premiums? Wouldn’t this process just make the original payment by the health insurer a loan to the customer?
Luckily, there is an exception to subrogation in Wisconsin. If the injured person has not been made 100% whole from the settlement with the at-fault insurance company or from a jury verdict, then the health insurance company gets nothing. A good Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorney will be able to get the subrogated health insurance carriers to take substantial reductions with the promise that they will receive nothing if the judge is convinced that the client did not recover 100% of their damages. These reductions always result in more recovery for the injury victim.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information on Wisconsin Personal Injury Claims
