January 20th, 2018

Most of the times the answer is yes.

I say most of the times because in our experience most of the times the insurance companies deny many claims that should have not be denied in the first place. The reason? Money. The insurance companies are in the business of increasing profitability for their shareholders. They don't care about anything else.

For that reason, if there is a slight chance that they can get away from not paying a claimant they will. We have handled many claims that the insurance companies have wrongfully denied in the beginning, however, later decided to change their mind and pay.

In our experience most of the times, the insurance companies base their evaluation and denial of such claims on a police report. There are many problems with relying on a police report in making an assessment of fault. For one the police were likely never there when the collision happened. Second, the report is on the basis of statements that the driver of the other vehicle has made. This can make the officers assessment faulty. There also may be other vehicle codes that the police may have not considered that in fact may put the party responsible instead of you.

For these reasons it's important to contact a car accident lawyer who is familiar with these types of situations to make sure you are not wrongfully denied a claim.

We take on many tough cases and would be happy to evaluate your claim.

Contact us or text us 24/7 at 619-485-6313 for a free case evaluation and speak with an experienced injury lawyer in San Diego today.


January 16th, 2018

We are always asked how can I maximize my San Diego personal injury award?

If you have been injured, generally you are dealing with an insurance adjuster. The unfortunate truth is that insurance adjusters do not look at us as humans. For them, we are all just a number, and they have a system by which they input all of the data including medical treatment, and loss wages and it assigns a value to the case.

Below are several factors that you could use to maximize your injury award:

  • Do not allow gaps in your treatment

    . This is because any gap in treatment is read as no pain and therefore no treatment. Of course, what is not considered are other reasons why the person may not have been seeking treatment such as: work schedule, the doctor not having an appointment, or simply not liking to go to the doctor and putting it off until it really becomes a necessity. Seriously how many of us love to going to the doctor?!

  • Make sure to describe all of your symptoms accurately to your doctor. 

  • Make sure that your doctor accurately reflects all of your symptoms in his notes. 

  • Discuss all of your options with your doctor (i.e. pain management; physical therapy; surgery).

  • Do not exaggerate any of your symptoms.

  • Do ask your doctor for a specialist if you are not getting better. 

  • Document the way you feel each and every day. 

    This will allow you and your attorney to determine how the injury has affected your life. There is a category of damages that are called non-economic damages, which we like to call "human damages."  These damages could include feelings of: pain, sadness, anxiety, embarrassment, shame, fear, and anger.



  • Make sure you report everything to your attorney so he/she is up to date on all of your medical treatment. 

  • Always tell the truth. 

    This cannot be stressed enough. 

  • If there is any bruising or scarring make sure you take a picture of it

    . There is nothing more convincing than photographs.

  • Do not under any circumstance give a statement to the insurance adjusters. 

    This is almost the same as not speaking to the police because everything you tell them is going to be used against you.  

  • If you have had a previous injury related to your current injury make sure you describe that to your doctor. 

    Insurance companies love to use this one against you, but under the law if the injury has gotten worse

The injuring party would still be responsible for the entire injury. Its just like when your windshield was cracked but you were still driving your car for 5 years with no problems and now it becomes completely shattered. Who should pay for it? The person who made it worse. 

Insurance adjusters forget that we are humans that have been injured through no fault of our own. Following these steps could help in maximizing your personal injury award. Insurance companies and their agents are in the business of making money by hedging risks. For this reason, the less money they pay, the more money they make. Unfortunately, they do not look at us like humans. At Rejali Law Firm we pride ourselves in taking only a few cases at a time, this approach allows us to know each of our clients on an individual human level, so we can effectively demonstrate whether to an insurance adjuster, a mediator, or a jury how our clients life has been affected by the injuries they have sustained.

As Gerry Spence, America's best trial lawyer says: "This world will be a better place when the power of love overcomes the love of power." We strive to bring the power of love to each of our clients and to the courtroom each and every time.

If you have any questions about your claim contact us or text us 24/7 at (619)-485-6313.


January 12th, 2018

In our most recent litigation one of the mostly contested and litigated issues was whether the Regents of the University of California ("Regents") is considered a "business establishment" under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Act")?

Since there is no direct case law on the issue, Regents tends to frequently make the argument that it is not and should not be considered a "business establishment" under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Although the case that we have been litigating is not final, and no direct case law has been established yet that specifically addresses the issue, a San Diego Superior Court Judge denied the Regents' multiple attempts at arguing that it should not be held liable because it is not a "business establishment."

This is an extremely important holding because it exposes Regents to potential statutory damage awards each time they violate the Act. If you are an attorney or a victim of the Regents' violative acts make sure you get in contact with us.


August 25th, 2017

We cannot be any happier today for our client, and to have the pleasure of representing him against one of the biggest Universities in the country. We look forward to the trial on this case, which is currently set to begin on September 29, 2017. This morning San Diego Superior Court ruled that our client’s case against Regents of The University of California, San Diego, would be heard by a jury. One step closer to justice for our client against the Universities disgraceful attack on his disabilities. The name of the case is Jazirian v. Regents of the University of California San Diego. SDSC Case#: 2016-00007684.


July 20th, 2017

By Omid Rejali, Esq.

It has been quite some time since I have been wanting to write about this topic. As a disability advocate and one who suffers from a disability, I have found it to be my calling to assist people who are in a similar situation.

As a student in college and later law school I did not receive any type of accommodation, despite having been diagnosed with a mental disability in my junior year of college. Simply put, I was ignorant and did not know anything about ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) or its counterpart the 504 Rehabilitation Act.

Both of these laws are federal laws that were passed by congress to level the playing field for people with disabilities in their use and enjoyments of services that a business offers. In its most broadest sense, they give people who suffer from disabilities whether physical or mental such as, depression, PTSD, and those that are deaf or blind with the right to request reasonable accommodations to allow them to excel in a program or to have the same access to a business establishment.

Every year, about 42.5 million American Adults suffers from some form of mental illness. Yet, it surprises me that as a nation we have yet to recognize a mental disability as one that affects our life on the same footing as that of a physical disability. Unfortunately, the stigma that our society has attached to these types of illnesses has made it very difficult for people suffering from these extremely debilitating illnesses from expressing their feelings and seeking help.

Recently, we have been seeing a trend at major public universities putting policies in place to systematically deny such rights to their students. This type of practice is not only illegal, it could lead to devastating effects for students academically. In a few instances the lack of support has also lead to student suicides.

Remember, under the ADA and the 504 Rehabilitation act you have a FEDERAL RIGHT to seek reasonable accommodations.

I am passionate about the work I do and will make sure that your rights are protected. Don't fight these people alone. let us be your voice.


June 29th, 2017

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the NCAA's policy of excluding anyone with a felony conviction from coaching at NCAA-certified youth athletic tournaments violates Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a(a). Section 2000a(a) prohibits racial discrimination in places of public accommodation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the NCAA and held that even if disparate-impact claims were cognizable under Title II, plaintiff has not shown that an equally effective, less discriminatory alternative to the NCAA's felon-exclusion policy exists, as he must do under the three-step analysis for disparate-impact claims set forth in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989). The panel noted that it need not decide whether to endorse or reject disparate-impact liability under Title II.

Hardie proposed two alternatives to the Participant Approval Policy: (1) the NCAA could revert to the pre-2011 version of the policy, which disqualified applicants with violent but not nonviolent felony convictions that were at least seven years old; or (2) the NCAA could conduct individualized assessments of applicants with felony convictions to determine if they would pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of tournament participants. The Court held that Hardie has failed to show that either of his proposed alternatives would be both equally effective compared to, and less discriminatory than, the current policy.

Read more here.


January 17th, 2017

We are pleased to announce that Omid Rejali, our managing attorney, has been selected to the 2017 California Super Lawyers Rising Star list. This is en exclusive list, recognizing no more that two and half percent of attorneys in the state.

Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a research-driven, peer influenced rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Attorneys are selected from more than 70 practice areas and all firm sizes, assuring a credible and relevant annual list.

The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes:

  • Peer nominations

  • Independent research by Super Lawyers

  • Evaluations from a highly credentialed panel of attorneys

The objective of Super Lawyers is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys to be used as a resource for both referring attorneys and consumers seeking legal counsel.

The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country, as well as the California'sSuper Lawyers Digital Magazine.

Please join us in congratulating Omid Rejali on his selection. For more information about Super Lawyers, go to


October 20th, 2016

We are all human and are bound to make mistakes, this includes trial courts. However, the decision on whether to appeal a decision of the court is not an easy task and the procedural elements associated with filing an appeal if not followed properly can have devastating effects, including dismissal of your appeal. Generally speaking you have 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Keep in mind this is a jurisdictional requirement, meaning if you don't timely file your notice you completely lose your chance of having the court of appeal consider your appeal.

CCP 904.1 codifies the general list of appealable orders and judgments. Generally an appeal may be had from a final judgment thatterminatesthe trial court proceedings bycompletely disposing the matter in controversy.

Appeals are extremely technical and the California Court of Appeals has specific rules that need to be adhered to. There are many factors that need to be taken into consideration prior to making a decision on whether or not to file an appeal. Such considerations include the standard of review that the appeals court will use in determining whether the trial court made an error. Broadly speaking there are three standards of review the court uses, they include: abuse of discretion, insufficiency of evidence, and de novo. A de novo review allows the court of appeal to ignore the trial courts ruling and look at the circumstances with a fresh set of eyes. Whereas in an insufficiency of evidence or abuse of discretion review the appellant would have to point to specific parts of the record and explain why the trial courts ruling was made in error.

Bottom line, appeals are extremely time consuming, costly, and technical that's consulting with an appeals lawyer who is familiar with the nuances of appeals is a must for any party considering appealing a decision.


April 1st, 2016

In Kirchmeyer v. Phillips, the California Court of Appeal for the third district once again solidified the importance of the psychotherapist-patient privilege against an unwarranted investigatory subpoena for production of patient’s records.

Kimberly Kirchmeyer, as Executive Director of the Medical Board of California (the Medical Board), launched an investigation of Geoffrey Phillips, M.D., a licensed psychiatrist, based on a complaint that Phillips had carried on a sexual relationship with a patient. As part of the investigation, an investigatory subpoena duces tecum for the production of specified medical records of the patient was served on Phillips. After both he and the patient objected to the subpoena duces tecum, and he failed to produce the medical records, the Kirchmeyer filed a petition to compel their production. The trial court denied the petition and dismissed it. The Kirchmeyer appealed that dismissal.

After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not err and affirmed: "The medical records sought by the investigatory subpoena duces tecum were protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege of Evidence Code section 1014. Because the psychotherapist-patient privilege is grounded in the patient’s constitutional right of privacy, the Director had to show a compelling interest justifying production of the medical records sought. The Director failed to show a compelling interest and has not established that an exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege applied to the medial records sought by the investigatory subpoena duces tecum."

The case is a great example of how each and every day agencies try to pry into our lives for different reasons. There are many different privileges that exists whether in the criminal setting or in the civil arena some of which include: spousal testimonial privilege, attorney-client privilege and clergy-penitent privilege. Each of these privileges exist to protect us from agencies, organizations or the government from intruding into our lives or for example in case of the spusal testimonial privilege preserve the harmony of the marriage by preventing the prosecution from forcing a spouse to testify against her accused husband.

If you have been injured having a firm with a track record of success is crucial contact the Rejali Law Firm for your case evaluation.


March 8th, 2016

Rejali Law Firm, APLC has filed suit against Regents of the University of California San Diego (“University”) in San Diego Superior Court. The Lawsuit alleges that the University through its employees, agents and associates has violated California’s discriminatory laws, has allegedly committed promissory fraud and negligence against its client.

The parties are expected to make their first appearance in court on August 19th, 2016.

Rejali Law Firm

This website is designed for general information only. The information presented in this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of an attorney/client relationship. Before making any type of legal decision make sure to discuss your rights with a qualified attorney.

© 2014 Copyright RejaliLawFirm