Dunnion Law Firm

The Dunnion Law Firm recently concluded a minor injury claim in mediation. Prior to hiring The Dunnion Law Firm, the defendant's insurance carrier refused to make any offer contending that claimant had not sustained any significant injury. The Dunnion Law Firm commenced aggressive litigation resulting in the defendant's insurance carrier abandoning its house counsel for a top rated Stockton trial attorney. The new attorney, after initially offering $60,000.00, agreed to mediation. Faced with overwhelming expert reports at the mediation, the defendant increased its offer by over $100,000.00 and a pre-trial settlement was achieved.

If you or someone you know has been injured in an incident like this or another type of accident, don’t guess about your rights or what you deserve as compensation. Call the Dunnion law Firm at 1-800-386-6466 for an immediate free consultation or submit the contact information to our firm. We can help you!

The Dunnion Law Firm successfully settled a bodily injury claim for a California man who was severely injured in Alaska while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by a friend. The driver of the vehicle left the roadway at a very high rate of speed and struck a utility pole and fire hydrant.   The driver was subsequently arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Remarkably, our client stated to the investigating police officers, through an interpreter at the accident scene, that he was not injured in the single car accident.  

Approximately 10 hours after the collision, the client suffered a debilitating massive stroke and was hospitalized in Alaska and Washington before finally being transferred to California for extensive rehabilitation. Through aggressive negotiation and expertise, the Dunnion Law Firm demanded and obtained double the policy limits plus attorney's fees from the at-fault drunk driver’s insurance company.

If you or someone you know has been injured in an incident like this or another type of accident, don’t guess about your rights or what you deserve as compensation. Call the Dunnion law Firm at 1-800-386-6466 for an immediate free consultation or submit the contact information to our firm. We can help you!

This was an unfortunate case involving a husband and wife and a motor vehicle. The victim husband claimed he was crossing a street in broad daylight in a cross walk with a green light. His wife was walking directly behind him and witnessed her husband being hit by the Defendants car, which failed to stop and yield to them.  The wife narrowly missed being struck by the careening vehicle as well. A CHP officer was a direct witness to the incident, and in fact, was able to yield to the husband and wife pedestrians even though the Defendant failed to do so. The Husband suffered very serious injuries including a severely fractured leg. His wife was so distressed from witnessing the accident and his agonizing injuries that she sufferred a severe heart attack three days later. The Defendant claimed that he had the green light and the police officer agreed with him.  Unfortunately the Police Report blamed the pedestrians for crossing in a crosswalk on a red light!

Thomas J. Dunnion, founder of The Dunnion Law Firm of Monterey, California, has been retained to bring a lawsuit against Petrotek, Dale McAnally and Daniel Manrique, on behalf of Linda McIntyre, Esq. and her husband Michael McIntyre. Mrs. McIntyre was horrifically injured in a motor vehicle accident on September 28, 2009 on U.S. 101 in San Jose, California. Both Mr. and Mrs. McIntyre were traveling southbound on U. S. 101 north of Blossom Hill Road on their respective motorcycles. The defendants’ vehicle approached them from the northbound side of U.S. 101. A tire suddenly came off the defendants’ truck, traveled across the northbound lanes over a guardrail and into the southbound lanes. While Mr. McIntyre narrowly missed being struck, Mrs. McIntyre was unable to avoid the tire which collided with the front of her vehicle causing her to lose control and be ejected onto the roadway.

Most significantly, Mrs. McIntyre suffered an amputation to her left leg just below her thigh. Additionally, she suffered a severed artery at the time of the accident and ultimately was saved by the timely response of emergency personnel. Due to this accident, to date, she has had to undergo eight surgeries, a fracture to the right knee cap, displaced femur fractures and multiple other debilitating injuries, in addition to the loss of her limb.

Mrs. McIntyre, Esq. is currently employed by the Moss Landing Harbor District as the Harbor Master. Linda McIntyre has enjoyed riding her 2007 Harley motorcycle with her husband throughout the United States. Both Mr. and Mrs. McIntyre have suffered significant psychological, emotional and physical damages due to this matter.

Thomas J. Dunnion, Esq. states "This is a horrific accident for this family. Petrotek has caused anguish and torment upon both of these people. In our prosecuting our client's case, our office is determined to pursue all avenues of recovery".

Problem: Insurance companies, defense attorneys, and many courts, contend that a plaintiff is entitled to receive only the amount actually paid by the health insurance company as plaintiff’s medical special damages. 

Question #1: What is a Plaintiff entitled to receive as special damages when a form of medical insurance has paid their medical bills?

Question #2: What arguments can be made to insurance adjusters, defense attorneys, mediators, arbitrators, and judges who take this position? What authority can be cited in support of these arguments?

Background

Insurance companies and defense attorneys have always sought ways to reduce the amounts payable to claimants bringing claims based upon negligence. If the amount a Plaintiff can collect, as “special damages,” is limited, the insurance company reduces the dollars paid out on claims. In recent years, it has become fashionable to reduce the amount of a Plaintiff’s medical special damages based upon “adjustments” made by medical providers when they receive payment from a health insurance.

This practice has become so routine that many insurance companies refuse to make any offer of settlement on a third party liability claim without receiving the “Hanif specials” showing the amounts actually paid to the providers by a health insurance. Defense attorneys routinely seek to introduce into evidence the amount of contractual write offs along with requests to the Court to limit the amount of medical specials the plaintiff can present to the jury. 

It has become common for trial judges to accept as California law that plaintiffs are entitled to only receive medical special damages equal to the “Hanif specials.” A number of Court of Appeal cases have followed this line of reasoning and have upheld reductions of plaintiff’s medical special damages. See Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635; Nishihama v. City and County of San Francisco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4^th 298; Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) 141 Cal.App.4^th 1150; Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal.App.4^th 1288; Olsen v. Reid (2008) 164 Cal.App.4^th 200.

The leading case cited by those that argue the medical special damages should be reduced is Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 (Hereafter, “Hanif”). In Hanif, plaintiff Sajjad Hanif, a minor, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on September 3, 1979. Plaintiff was a pedestrian when a vehicle on the property of defendant Housing Authority of Yolo County struck him. After trial, judgment was entered against defendant and in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff’s medical bills had been paid by Medi-Cal, California’s implementation of the federal Medicaid plan. The defendant objected to the introduction of plaintiff’s bills to the extent they exceeded the amounts paid by Medi-Cal. The trial court overruled the objection and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal modified the amount of medical specials awarded to plaintiff and affirmed the modified award. The Court of Appeal ruled that the collateral source rule did not apply as the bills had been paid by Medi-Cal and so plaintiff was only entitled to receive the amounts paid by Medi-Cal as special damages – the contracted write offs were not special damages incurred by plaintiff. The Court of Appeal distinguished payments by Medi-Cal from payments made by a collateral source as Medi-cal is not coverage paid for by the recipient, but rather, is a social benefit. 

In 2001, the First District Court of Appeal ruled in Nishihama v. City and County of San Francisco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4^th 298, that the same argument applied to contracted write offs by a medical provider upon payment by a private health insurance company - the court ruled that the contracted write offs were not special damages incurred by plaintiff. In Nishihama, the Court of Appeal relied upon a Federal case that interpreted lien rights based upon the Hospital Lien Act (HLA). The Court of Appeal did not ever reference the collateral source rule and the ruling in Nishihama conflicts with Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1, the leading California Supreme Court Case on the Collateral Source Rule.

Since 2001, defendants have more vigorously argued that any write offs by any provider based upon any contractual agreement should be excluded from Plaintiff’s special damages. Many courts have bought this argument and ruled accordingly. 

Collateral Source Rule

In Peri v. Los Angeles Junction Ry.Co. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 111, 131, the court ruled: 

While it is true that the [plaintiff] received $2 per day compensation while he was unable to work, that sum may not be deducted from his loss of earnings, because it was received from an insurance company under a policy owned and held by him. Damages recoverable from a wrong are not diminished by the fact that the party injured has been wholly or partly indemnified for his loss by insurance effected by him, and to the procurement of which the wrongdoer did not contribute …

The California Supreme Court continues to uphold the collateral source rule. (De Cruz v. Reid (1968) 69 Cal.2d 217; City of Salinas v. Souza (1967) 66 Cal.2d 217; Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1)

The Helfend court clearly explained the public policy behind the collateral source rule. “The collateral source rule expresses a policy judgment in favor of encouraging citizens to purchase and maintain insurance for personal injuries and for other eventualities.” Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1.

Double Recovery

Defendants sometimes argue that plaintiffs are not entitled to a “double recovery” and these contractual write offs represent an unfair double recovery, a windfall, if plaintiffs are allowed to receive the write offs as special damages.

The truth of the matter is, whenever there are multiple insurance companies with an obligation to pay for medical expenses, there is going to be a windfall. The only question is, who gets the windfall. Defendants argue it cannot be the plaintiff. When the courts follow this reasoning, the defendants, or their liability insurance carrier, gains the windfall, when they do not have to pay for damages they actually caused. This result is absurd. The wrongdoer is allowed to pay less because the innocent victim had the foresight to protect him or herself.

The collateral source rule says when a person has the foresight to pay money out of their pocket to protect themselves; they should be the party to benefit from the existence of that coverage. It does not really represent a double benefit when that party has paid the premiums for that collateral source over the years – they are merely receiving the benefit they have paid for.

This is distinguished when the second source is from the defendant’s insurance coverage, such as medical payments coverage on the defendant’s automobile policy. If the defendant’s medical payments coverage pays a medical bill and then plaintiff obtains a judgment against the defendant, the judgment would be reduced by those amounts already paid by defendant’s coverage.

In Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1, the court ruled:

The collateral source rule as applied here embodies the venerable concept that a person who has invested years of insurance premiums to assure his medical care should received the benefits of his thrift. The tortfeaser should not garner the benefits of his victim’s providence.

What is a plaintiff entitled to receive as special damages when a form of medical insurance has paid their medical bills?

It is generally accepted law that a plaintiff is entitled to receive all reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred as a result of a defendant’s negligence.

In Helfend, The California Supreme Court ruled that an injured party’s compensation from a source wholly independent of the defendant should not be deducted from damages otherwise collectible from the defendant. The court also ruled that all evidence of such collateral sources is inadmissible.

Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise, or the legislature enacts statutes that depart from the collateral source rule, this is and will remain California law.

In Hanif, the Court of Appeal ruled payments made by Medi-Cal are not a collateral source because the payments were not a result of the plaintiff’s industry and thus the public policy justification of the collateral source rule does not apply. This ruling is consistent with the collateral source rule.

Defendants argue this scheme of reduction should apply to all health insurance write offs, which is a violation of the collateral source rule. In Olsen v. Reid, (2008) 164 Cal.App.4^th 200, Acting PJ Moore writes:

I write separately to sound the bell of alarm: By virtue of the Hanif/ Nishihama procedure (citations omitted) permitting the posttrial reduction of medical expenses, the collateral source rule has been buried without the dignity of any services or parting words.    .   .   .   .   I decline to apply the postverdict hearing schemes set for

th in Hanif/ Nishihama to private insurance situations, absent either statutory authority or endorsement from the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the “Hanif reductions” sought by defendants and insurance companies should only be applied when the reductions are not a result of coverage paid for by the plaintiff. When the insurance coverage is paid for by the plaintiff it is a collateral source and California law requires that any evidence of the collateral source be excluded from the jury.

What arguments can be made to insurance adjusters, defense attorneys, mediators, arbitrators, and judges to make this contention? What authority can be cited in support of these arguments?

Plaintiff lawyers throughout the state are trying numerous tactics to combat this illegal reduction of medical specials by insurance carriers. Once the case gets into litigation, when plaintiffs cite the collateral source rule and establish that the health insurance is not Medi-cal, the courts are beginning to recognize the Hanif/ Nishihama reductions are not appropriate. 

Attorneys are citing Helfend and Hanif with good success. Some courts that have once followed Nishihama without question have begun to recognize the allowance of all incurred medical specials is required by the collateral source rule. This includes Los Angeles County Superior Court, San Mateo County Superior Court, San Bernardino County Superior Court, San Diego County Superior Court, and Marin County Superior Court.

Attorneys have also started objecting to the collection of documents and information based upon the collateral source rules. Currently, two motions for protective orders are pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court waiting for rulings to prevent defendants from obtaining health insurance information by subpoena.

Before cases are in litigation, the issue is more problematic. Some insurance carriers are refusing to make any offer of settlement without the receipt of collateral source information. Once they receive the collateral source information they are taking reductions that violate the collateral source rule when they complete their evaluation.

When carriers take this approach, the appropriate language should be cited in writing, along with the appropriate language regarding the carrier’s duty to protect its insured for all legal liability. If the carrier refuses to negotiate in good faith, suit may need to be filed to enforce the rights of plaintiffs to receive a full recovery for their damages.

The Dunnion Law Firm represented a client who was a pedestrian struck by a hit-and-run driver while standing with friends in a parking lot. The collision knocked the victim violently to the ground. The driver of the hit-and-run car exited her vehicle to check on the victim, then suddenly got back in her vehicle, and sped away from the scene. No one at the scene was able to obtain the identity of the fleeing at fault driver. The Dunnion Law Firm commenced an immediate investigation and determined that the client's Uninsured Motorist (UM) coverage would be applicable in this case. The client’s insurance company initially outright denied the claim. A coverage battle ensued which the insurance carrier caused to drag on unnecessarily for months. During this time, the firm assisted the injury victim in obtaining the specialized medical attention she needed for her serious back and leg injuries. After aggressively prosecuting the case she eventually was able to settle her case without going to court for her policy limits of $100,000.00, plus $15,000.00 in medical coverage.

Six months after the hit-and-run accident, but prior to achieving it’s settlement, the same client was involved in a relatively minor car accident, which exacerbated the original back injury incurred in the hit-and-run accident. The defendant’s insurance company in the second accident knew of her first accident and took the position of blaming all of her injuries on that accident. They refused to make any type of offer and forced the firm to file a lawsuit against their driver. Litigation ensued until the case settled shortly before Trial at a private mediation obtaining a great six-figure settlement from the second accident insurance company. The client was so pleased with our results, she has referred her niece to the Dunnion Law Firm for her car accident case.

The attorneys at The Dunnion Law Firm specialize only in automobile accidents and have a very successful reputation and track record. We know how to deal with insurance companies and we will fight until we get the best results for our clients. If you or a loved one needs any help with any type of automobile injury claim, please call the specialists at The Dunnion Law Firm at (800) DUNNION

The Dunnion Law Firm represented a client who was involved in a major head-on accident and incurred serious injuries. The responsible party was killed in the accident. The client was confronted with delay tactics and given the runaround from the defendant’s insurance company for nearly a year before finally calling the Dunnion Law Firm as her life slumped into an emotional downward spiral. Her medical bills were over $360,000 and she had no car insurance of her own to provide for payment of any of her bills. She called and sought help from many other attorneys but all had rejected accepting her case. At first the defendant’s insurance company said they would not pay anything for her claim. Then, after further delays told her they would pay only her medical providers while she would get zero! She finally turned to The Dunnion Law Firm for help and they accepted her case. 

The firm immediately filed a lawsuit against the other driver’s estate and filed a late claim with the Probate Court because the client had waited too long during the endless delays caused by the insurance company. During this entire time the insurance company never advised her of her rights or the fact that she would lose her right of recovery if certain time sensitive criteria were not met. With the aggressive involvement of the Dunnion Law Firm, the probate attorney and the defendant’s insurance company decided not to continue fighting and decided to settle for not only the $50,000.00 policy limits, but also paid the victim $30,000, a substantial portion of the deceased's estate. The firm then negotiated one medical lien from $200,000 owed by the client down to zero and another from over $160,000 to just $16,000. When all was said and done, the client ended up netting $25,000.00 in her pocket and all her medical bills were completely resolved.

The Dunnion Law Firm specializes in automobile accident cases. The firm understands and takes the necessary steps to obtain the best results for injury clients whether through insurance companies or the confiscation of liable assets and estates. The firm also successfully negotiates medical bills and liens because of experience and knowledge concerning loopholes and exceptions that often apply. If you or a loved one have been injured in any type of automobile or other injury type of accident, do not wait for the insurance company to help you. Immediately call the specialists at The Dunnion Law Firm at (800 ) DUNNION to fight for your rights and get you what you deserve.

The Dunnion Law Firm successfully settled a claim for a young soldier who was injured while home on leave from Iraq.  The accident, caused by a fellow soldier driving a vehicle he was a passenger in, was a single car rollover crash that resulted in serious injuries to the young soldier.  Through aggressive negotiation, The Dunnion Attorneys obtained the full policy limits from the defendants insurance company.  Just as impressive, The firm was able to successfully negotiate a full waiver of the ARMY'S lien for medical services in the amount $275,516.65.  It is nearly uneard of for the government to waive a lien of this type and size.  As a result of these efforts the young soldier was recently discharged fron medical care and was able to leave the hospital with over $30,000.00 in his pocket, no medical bills owing and a life disability rating from the Army which would provide him many benefits for the rest of his life.

If you or someone you know has been injured in an incident like this or another type of accident, don’t guess about your rights or what you deserve as compensation.  Call the Dunnion law Firm at 1-800-386-6466 for an immediate free consultation or submit the contact information to our firm. We can help you!
 

The Dunnion Law Firm successfully settled a claim for a young female client who was injured when her grandmother's car was struck exiting an apartment complex. There was no police report or other witnesses to the accident. The grandmother of the client settled her own claim and the insurance company offered the young female client's mother only $2000.00 for the injuries she sustained in the accident.  When the minor reached the age of majority in 2008; her accident happened in 2005, she called The Dunnion Law Firm to see if they could help. The firm agreed to take on the case and confirmed that no formal release had been signed by the client or her guardian. The Dunnion attorneys negotiated with the insurance carrier and persuaded them to pay out the $50,000.00 Policy Limits as compensation for her injured shoulder despite the fact that the client had a pre existing orthopedic injury. The young client stated that she was was very happy that she called The DLF when she needed help as they made sure that she received the compensation she deserved and was not taken advantage of by the insurance company. 

     A Hollister family refused to believe the motorist who blamed their father for causing his own death when in fact, it was the motorist who cut their father off causing a horrific accident which led to his death. The Rodriguez family sued the motorist for the untimely death of their father, German Rodriguez, who was also a local area minister, and has obtained over $2 million--the largest private settlement in the history of San Benito County for a case of this nature. The familys lawsuit against Jeffrey Steven Huff, a Watsonville resident, and his employer, Santa Cruz-based The Ledyard Company, sought damages for the grisly decapitation death of respected Hollister minister, German Rodriquez. Mr. Rodriguez was killed on April 25, 2005, when Jeffrey Huff suddenly cut into his lane of travel on San Felipe Road, forcing Mr. Rodriguezs car into the path of an oncoming big-rig. Mr. Rodriguez was killed instantly by the impact. His daughter, who was a passenger, survived the crash, but was trapped in the vehicle and forced to witness the brutally grotesque death of her father. A Good Samaritan motorist came to her immediate aid and gave comfort during the ordeal. The Hollister Police Department investigated the accident and found no fault on the part of Mr. Rodriguez. However, Jeffrey Huff placed all blame for the collision entirely on Mr. Rodriguez in his own defense against the lawsuit. With this settlement, which was agreed to without admission of liability, the Rodriguez family feels satisfied that their father is fully vindicated and cleared of any fault in this tragic accident. According to Joel Rodriguez, German Rodriguezs eldest son: We miss our Father everyday, he was our role model and our guiding light. We are satisfied that our attorneys have settled this case against the person who caused this accident. We can finally put this ordeal behind us." The Rodriguez family was represented in this action by The Dunnion Law Firm, a Monterey-based law firm, which represents clients throughout the San Francisco/San Jose bay area, the Central Coast and the entire San Joaquin Valley.