By S.J. Walker

Preliminary written discovery is a constant in all of litigation. The goal: to permit parties to evaluate the case, identify issues, and prepare for depositions and trial. Much of written discovery begins with form interrogatories and special interrogatories. Unfortunately, novice lawyers, and possibly some seasoned lawyers, forget that the defense counsel will use the information in your client’s interrogatories at deposition and throughout the case. As such, making sure a proper analysis is done on each question will ensure your client provides the proper and accurate responses. It is the professional responsibility of the lawyer to represent their client competently and diligently, and without a proper analysis of each question, an attorney may be falling short of one, if not both, of these professional duties.

Analysis Step 1: Must / Should I object?

Begin by asking yourself “Must/should I object.” There are certain and pertinent moments when an attorney must object in order to protect attorney-client privilege, the client’s privacy, or to preserve an objection. Answering interrogatories without regard to the privacy or confidentiality of your client will lead the attorney on a quick road to sanctions, malpractice, or disbarment. This seems simple enough, but many times attorney’s do not take the time to analyze and ensure that the answer they provide to a special interrogatory is not confined to attorney-client privilege, client’s right to privacy, or if the interrogatory is objectionable. As far as I can see, there are multiple reasons an attorney will “mess up” on responding to the interrogatory: (1) an attorney is busy, and they forget or utterly disregard the power of the interrogatory; (2) the lawyer is not quite at the level of competency he/she needs to be at (such as a novice attorney); and/or (3) they simply missed an objection or did not know that objection was proper (again, lack of competency).

“Must / Should I object” step is arguably the most important step in analyzing a response to an interrogatory. If responses to interrogatories are not timely, all objections are waived. Thus, if you miss your objection then it is not preserved, which can lead to multiple consequences. A practitioner who errors on the side of over-objecting will fair better than the attorney who missed a significant objection. Slow down, analyze, and object.

Analysis Step 2: Should Information Be Provided Even If An Objection Is Stated?

The second question to ask is: “Should information be provided even if an objection is stated?” Pick your battles wisely. Getting into a discovery battle is an excessive depletion of a Plaintiff’s time, and a serious billing nightmare for a defense attorney. Thus, it is important to avoid the fight if you can.

Most requests should be answered, even if an objection is stated. But objecting to every request without providing an answer will surely lead to a motion to compel evidence. Nothing will create a response from defense more than a response that insinuates that you are hiding something. Some requests are improper in their form, yet the other side is entitled to the information. Other requests seek information that may damage your case. Some require a showing of relevance that a judge will eventually grant. In these situations, state your objection, but comply with the request. Specify that you are not waiving your objection by stating, “Subject to and without waiving the objections, plaintiff responds as follows. . .”

Analysis Step 3: What Objection Should I Make?

Having an arsenal of objections will help an attorney to know what to object and how to do it. Many objections have case law attached to them, and an attorney should cite to that case law. Using legal authority will assist in future battles if a motion to compel arises and the lawyer must write an opposition to the motion to compel. It creates consistency within the documents that make an attorney’s opposition stronger. Make the objection simple and clear, it does not need to be an elaborate, scholarly work of art. Don’t reinvent the wheel. Find tools and articles of cases that have been used in the past. Below are some objections to be made.

*Argumentative: Objection. This discovery request as phrased is argumentative. It requires the adoption of an assumption which is improper.

-Example: “When did you stop taking the drug?” This question assumes facts that might not be true, but requires the answer to adopt the assumption. The client may never have been taking the drug in the first place.

*Already Asked/Repetitive: Objection. This discovery request has already been asked (see Interrogatory/Request No. ___) Continuous discovery into the same matter constitutes oppression and Plaintiff further objects on this ground.

Find a case, and cite to it that seems relevant. Although this is not an assertive objection, if the defendant continuously seeks the same information it can be grounds for a protective order based on oppression. Thus, bring attention to it by objecting.

*Attorney Work-Product Protection: Objection. This discovery request seeks attorney work product.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030 subdivision (a) states, “[a] writing that reflects an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinion, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances.” In analyzing the work-product privilege, courts have determined that only derivative materials are protected. “Derivative work-product is that information created by or resulting from an attorney’s work on behalf of a client that reflects the attorney’s evaluation or interpretation of the law or facts involved. Non-derivative material includes those that are only evidentiary in nature.

There is plenty of case law to help determine if material is derivative or non-derivative in its nature. As such, use cases that are on point to tailor this objection.

*Collateral Source Rule: Objection. This discovery request seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

This specific rule is usually applied to insurance. Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210 permits discovery only of “Insurance. . . [that] may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgement that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.” Health insurance is not insurance available to satisfy a judgement or reimburse of payments made to satisfy the judgment.

Another example that could satisfy this objection, would be the violation of your clients right to privacy. For example, personal financial information is within this protection under the California Constitution, article I, section 1, and thus would suffice to fit under a collateral rule objection.

As there are numerous other objections that could be had, I will stop here. But it is imperative to know your objections, how to use them, and to argue your objection with quick concise sentences and cited authority. Authority will assist in getting your objections through a motion to compel. It is an obvious fact that attorney’s are busy and cannot spend a considerable amount of time on interrogatories. Because of this lack of time, spend a few hours compiling a list of objections, case law that corroborates those objections, and use that list to assist you in saving time on interrogatories. Knowing your objections will surely save time on your interrogatories. Thus, take the three steps above and prepare your interrogatory to avoid inadvertently damaging your case by failing to object, or providing too much information.

If you or a loved one has been seriously injured contact your San Diego Personal Injury today.

- By S.J. Walker

- J.D. Candidate

Direct examination is a talent that draws on knowledge, practice, and skill. The rules governing direct examination assist the judge or jury in discovering the facts and basis behind the case, and should be used to go beyond simply reiterating the evidence that is already admitted. To ensure that an attorney makes the most out of their time with their witness, there are important tactics that can be used such as the importance of certain moments when leading a witness may be appropriate and permissible; how to use documents; and how not to waste your time redirecting unless it truly adds something to the prior testimony.

Know What’s Permissible with Regards to Leading Questions:

In a jury trial or bench trial, the lawyers in a court room know the rule not to ask leading questions on direct examination. But it is likely that many of these attorneys adhere to this rule a little more strictly than what is necessary. Take, for example, an instance where a witness seems to ramble. As the witness ponders her answer with a couple minutes, two different consequences may occur: (1) A jury’s attention to detail may be averted, or (2) the witness may look unknowledgeable. This can happen even as the witness goes through the normal cognitive process of trying to recall something from memory. In an instance such as this, an obvious choice to avoid these consequences would be to spend more time preparing the witness. However, what happens in the moment of the direct examination? How can an attorney who is caught off guard best advocate to ensure the witness is providing everything that is relevant? Shouldn’t an attorney be allowed to ask a leading question to avoid the consequences to the jury or judge?

The answer is a common one in the law, it depends. There is authority to allow a leading question. Evidence Code Section 767 provides an introduction that creates an exception to prohibiting leading questions, stating that such questions are allowed in “special circumstances” or “where the interests of justice require.” The comment to the rule allows leading questions on direct examination where there is little danger of improper suggestion or where such questions are necessary to obtain relevant evidence. Take for example, asking a witness when she started her work. This would be an example of a time that a leading question may be permissible because there is little danger of improper suggestion; the attorney is establishing a background fact that is uncontested. Indeed, preliminary matters are exempt from the bar on leading questions, this was simply to be used as an example.

When things move forward to contested matters, it is important to be wary of leading questions, as they may lead the attorney to receiving objections; however, it is important not to be too wary, there could be an argument to be made as to why the leading question may not be improper because there would be little danger of improper suggestion.

In addition, there is also authority under a comment to Section 767(a) that allows leading questions of direct examination for “refreshing recollection, and examining handicapped witnesses, expert witnesses, and hostile witness.” As an attorney, find the balance in leading questions. A lawyer may have tactical reasons for not asking leading questions. This is supposed to be the witness testifying not the lawyer, so let the witness answer, but avoid halting the testimony as much as possible by providing leading questions where permissible.

Use Documents to Ensure Your Witness Tells the Story

It is easy for an attorney to use documents in a direct examination that fail to tell a story, and thus seem to waste the examination. Documents speak for themselves, and it is simple to have a witness read a document or a segment of the document, and make the testimony inadmissible because the document speaks for itself. Thus, it is important as a substantive matter, that the lawyer gets testimony that is actually meaningful. Don’t leave the judge or the jury with nothing but the exhibits themselves.

Of course, the documents themselves are important to a lawyer’s case. They are the tangible items the jury takes into deliberation. But once they are admitted into evidence, it is more important to have the witness drive the testimony rather than the documents themselves. Have the witness explain what the document is, and try to get the witness to offer testimony that could stand on its own without the documents.

For example, a lawyer could ask “What dispute did you have with X company last year?” The client then responds. Then the lawyer asks, “How did you first learn of X company’s mistake.” The client states that they sent him a letter. Next, the attorney places the Exhibit (the letter) on the screen and solicits testimony of the letter. This shows that the witness is driving the testimony. The document is now being used to supplement, corroborate, or emphasize the direct examination.

This type of questioning has many different effects: (1) it is obviously more interesting that simply reading a document and thus will likely help to keep a judge or jury more engaged than going through the documents one by one; (2) The witness is now providing testimony of what happened, when, and why; (3) Understanding what happened, when, and why then has a better chance of making the documents more understandable, which has the potential of making the trier-of-fact more convinced of the party’s case; and (4) the testimony does more that reaffirm what is in the documents and is independent evidence to support a trial court’s ruling which can help defend a judgement on appeal. As such, let the witness direct the testimony (with the attorney’s assistance, of course) not the documents.

Achieve Something in a Redirect Examination

Too many times lawyers tend to fall short of achieving anything in their redirect examinations, even after having a great direct examination. Why? Well, it likely has something to do with the fact that the attorney is much more prepared for the direct examination than the redirect. This results in rambling at times, and sometimes no more than re-emphasizing areas that the opposing party covered in the cross-examination. It is easy to see how this can happen. In a direct examination, the attorney has already presented the things the attorney believes the judge or jury need to know from the witness.

Because the direct examination has already offered the testimony that the lawyer thought to be material, it may help to achieve something in a redirect examination if attorney prompts the witness to answer a question that has been left unaddressed on cross-examination – such as a “why” question that the opposing counsel has purposely avoided. This can provide the judge or jury with what facts each side will rely on to argue alternative reasons for certain facts.

Hon. Michael J. Raphael provides a great final though on redirects when he writes: “[E]licit any helpful testimony that directly answers the other side’s contentions on cross-examination, and when that is done, sit down.”

Many of these suggestions are clearly easier said than done, especially as I sit here behind a computer writing about them. They are all tactics that are potentially very useful in getting the most out of a witness. It is important to make the direct examination of a witness as useful to the client’s case as is possible. Remember to let the witness tell the story not the attorney; let the documents supplement, corroborate, or emphasize the witness’ testimony; and if the attorney is going to redirect, achieve something. Get the witnesses testimony and make it worth it!

Company car accident reports can be essential to changing the way a case turns out. An accident report has the power to change what may have been heading straight to litigation, to a settlement agreement in just a matter of days. Why? Well the answer is simple, the information provided in accident reports is a potential gold mind: i.e. party admissions from the defendant. However, getting the accident report is not so simple.

It is clear as to why a company would want to keep their accident report secret, and if they are keeping it a secret, usually there is something YOU should know in the report. So, in order to elevate yourself from simply being a good attorney to being a great attorney, get that accident report.

Step 1: Figure out if an accident report exists:

To figure out if an accident report exists, the easiest way to do this is to ask for it in the very first request for production. Be aware, the language used in this request must be specific in order to avoid the boilerplate objections of “overbroad, vague and ambiguous.” For example, “Any and all accident investigation or incident reports for the SUBJECT INCIDENT,” is likely a sufficient request. However, knowing company attorney’s, the accident report is still likely to remain in their possession because the company will claim that the document flows from the work product doctrine or is privileged. Being a great attorney is foreseeing such a consequence as this. As such, your last request for production should demand a privilege log in the event that the opposing counsel withholds any documents or other information based on a claim of privilege, work-product, or otherwise.

In the alternative, you can ask for a request for production of documents with a notice of a deposition of the defendant employee and the defendant’s person most qualified. If you do this, it is important to ask, “Any and all accident investigation or incident reports for the SUBJECT INCIDENT and the purpose(s) of those reports.” Remember to meet and confer and subsequently file a motion to compel if opposing counsel persists on not providing the documents. The request for the purpose of those reports will be useful in creating an argument against work product and privilege in order to get the documents you need released.

Step 2: If an accident report does exist, must the defendant produce it?

As with most things in the law, the answer is that it depends. If it is under the work-product doctrine, the document itself must “reflect” an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, research, etc. Usually, an accident report is reported by a supervisor or an employee. These people are non-lawyers and thus necessarily do not fall under the work product doctrine. This is something that is essential to discover to assist in a motion to compel.

Secondly, California follows the “Dominate Purpose” test to determine if a document is privileged. This is specifically discussed in D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Ct., (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723. If the dominate purpose of the document is not necessarily for litigation, then it does not likely fall under privilege. For example, it the main purpose of the document is to prevent an accident from happening again, its dominate purpose is not likely for litigation but for safety. Furthermore, if a company uses an accident report every single time there is an accident, it is likely as a safety precaution rather than litigation purpose. However, a document may have multiple purposes. If that is the case, your job is to get testimony and argue that the dominate purpose of these documents is not for litigation, but rather for some other purpose. Find that purpose!

Step 3: Get the Testimony to Help You in Your Motion to Compel.

This can be trying, but with skill and technique you will likely get what you are looking for out of the defendant employee of the person most qualified. There are a number of different ways to do this. I suggest always starting with the first route I will provide here, and the second and third steps can differ depending on your case.

First, confirm with the witness you are deposing that an accident report actually exists. Then, ask whether they reviewed the report to prepare for their deposition. Next, ask if reviewing the report refreshed their memory. If they answer yes to these three questions, Evidence Code section 771(a) is enacted which provides in part, “if a witness, either while testifying or prior thereto, uses a writing to refresh his memory with respect to any matter about which he testifies, such writing must be produced at the hearing at the request of an adverse party.” After this testimony, meet and confer and ask if the document will be produced in light of the testimony. Make sure to specifically cite to this Evidence Code. Likely the answer will be no, but they will have no legal basis for their argument.

If a document exists, but the answer to the latter two questions aforementioned is no, then it is important that you get testimony that debunks the argument that the accident report falls under the work product doctrine or is privileged. To do this, it is important to first lead the witness into the questioning to ensure that their mind is in the right place to get the answers you are looking for. For example, beginning a conversation on the importance and practice of safety in the workplace will likely get the witness on the track to thinking that the dominate purpose of the document is to protect safety. Thus, when you later ask what they believe the “dominate purpose” of the accident report is, they will likely provide you with the answers you desire.

Once you have lead the witness into your questioning, start with who prepared the document. It is easy to discern and debunk the work-product doctrine, especially if no attorney prepared it. Next, move into the dominate purpose. Ask questions such as: “does your company always fill out accident reports?; do they look after safety?; how do they train you on safety?” The more you can find a main purpose for the report rather than litigation; the easier your job will be when filing a motion to compel.

After you get the information you need, meet and confer in light of new evidence, then write your motion to compel.

When your motion to compel is granted, your whole case can change. The accident report can change what would have been a trial to a settlement much higher than expected. It is your job to be zealous, competent, and diligent for your client. As such, staying up to date on tricks like the one discussed in this blog will provide you with an advantage and a means to fulfill your duties.

For a more detailed analysis on this issue See:

Andrew Owen, The advocate Magazine 24-31, (April 2018).

By Omid Rejali

Recently I had the pleasure of representing a client who had been dropped by his former attorney. The issue evolved around a judgment that was obtained against him back in 2002. The main reason that no one wanted to take on this clients case was because he was a felon. That issue did not worry me one bit because I believed what the client was telling me and it was irrelevant to the issues at hand.

I initially attempted to resolve the matter informally with the attorney who had obtained the judgment against my client. He laughed at me and mocked my client by calling him a felon. That did not sit well with me.

The main issue evolved around a proof of service that alleged that my client had been "personally" served. All proof of service documents are signed under penalty of perjury by the process servers. To prove our case we sent subpoenas to both the Santa Ana county jail and also the California Department of Rehabilitation.

On the hearing date incontrovertible evidence through the testimony of the custodian of records proved that my client had been incarcerated and for that reason it was impossible that he was "personally" served at the address the plaintiff was claiming he was served.

As a result of the judgment based on two bank levies the clients account had been withdrawn approximately $9,000. He had attempted to get answers by contacting the attorney but he would not respond to him at all.

Couple of companies and individuals are going to have some explaining to do!

EQUAL AND MEANINGFUL

By: S.J. Walker

It has long been established that one of the main goals of the legal system is to provide equal access to the judicial process. It is clear that “equal access” is continuing to be defined and challenged on a constant basis as we thrive to ensure “equal access” is also “meaningful access.”

In the recent California Supreme Court decision in Jameson v. Desta, the Court found that San Diego County’s policy on court reporters was invalid because it did not provide an exception for indigent people. In Jameson v. Desta, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court for a nonsuit in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff, an indigent, who satisfied the requirements to have his court fees waived, was denied equal access to the judicial process when he was not provided a court reporter when he requested one during the trial stage of the proceedings. As a result, there existed no verbatim record of the trial court proceedings, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court because they could not determine the case on the merits due to the lack of the record. The California Supreme Court granted review.

The San Diego policy at issue states: Parties, including those with fee waivers, are responsible for all fees and costs related to court reporter services arranged under the foregoing provisions." (S.D. Reporter Availability Policy, supra,at p. 1, italics added, boldface omitted.).”

Here is where a serious problem lies because an indigent person (usually those who qualify for fee waivers) will lack the financial means to hire a court reporter. As such, no verbatim record of the trial court will be made. When no verbatim record is made, the functionality of the appellate level diminishes, and thus limits equal access to the judicial process for indigent people. People with the financial means to hire a court reporter would still be able to receive a verbatim record, and thus appeal with efficiency. This is not equal access.

The California Supreme Court noticed this issue. Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye wrote: “[W]hen a superior court adopts a general policy under which official court reporters are not made available in civil cases but parties who can afford to pay for a private court reporter are permitted to do so,” such as what San Diego did, “the superior court must include in its policy an exception for fee waiver recipients that assures such litigants the availability of a verbatim record of the trial court proceedings, which under current statutes would require the presence of an official court reporter.”

This decision invalidated the San Diego policy. Now there must be an exception, allowing for court reporters to be provided by the courts to indigent people in civil cases. This decision follows a number of California Supreme Court decisions that attempt to override statutory provisions to allow equal access to the courts for indigent people. The courts are constantly trying to determine that equal access is meaningful access, and I believe that providing a court reporter to someone who has already had their fees waived is a step closer to achieving this goal.

Let Jameson v. Desta serve as a reminder that equal access need be meaningful access as well. When equal access is not meaningful, it is in essence, not equal. Step back, reflect, and respond. Are the occurrences in your case equal and meaningful?

This case comes from Jameson v. Desta, 2018 S.O.S. 3377.

The California Court of Appeal held today that a Plaintiff is allowed to treat with doctors on liens, even if he/she was insured at the time of the accident.

This is an extremely important ruling for plaintiffs because it allows them to recover the full amount of money that they owe to their doctors when they treat on liens and solidifies their due process right to choose their own medical treatment.

The court of appeal reasoned that there could be many reasons why a plaintiff may choose to treat on a lien basis (this is when doctors choose to treat a plaintiff without getting paid, and would subsequently get paid after the plaintiffs case is over), for example because "plaintiffs generally make their health insurance choices before they are injured. These choices may be based on the plaintiffs' willingness to bear the risk posed by a health maintenance organization (HMO) rationing system because the plaintiff is healthy and requires little care. This decision may appear much different after a serious accident, when the plaintiff suddenly needs complex, extensive care that an HMO is not structured to provide." The court when on to say: "The plaintiff also may wish to choose a physician or surgeon who specializes in treating the specific type of injury involved, but who does not accept the plaintiff's insurance or any other type of insurance. In addition, health care providers that bill through insurance, rather than on a lien basis, may be less willing to participate in the litigation process."

This is a major victory for personal injury victims because it will allow them to introduce all of their medical bills at the time of trial so they could get compensated for them, without the fear that the court may grant a defendants motion to exclude the "unpaid" bills.

If you have been severely injured by someone else's wrong doing contact us for your free case evaluation. We will take any case to trial if that is what is required to fully compensate you for your injuries.

On March 20, 2018 we filed suit against McDonald's in San Diego Superior Court for Negligence; Products Liability; and breach of implied warranty stemming from allegations that our client suffered from second degree burns, when the coffee that was handed to her was not securely fastened and poured onto her lap.

The parties are expected to make their first appearance on December 14, 2018.

The court case number is: 37-2018-00014613-CU-PL-CTL.

By Omid Rejali, Esq.

If you have been involved in a car accident, bicycle accident, truck accident or have been injured as a result of someone else's careless behavior, the law allows you to be compensated for all of your past and future medical care, all of your past and future loss of earning and for pain and suffering.

In my practice I see it everyday where the insurance companies do not want to pay for the entire loss that my clients have suffered.

To answer the question of whether or not you are receiving the full value of your injury claim we need to look at several factors. First, the insurance company for the party who caused your loss is responsible to pay all of your past medical expenses. These past medical expenses are not and should not be limited only to what your copay is, but the actual amount that your insurance company paid for your visit. For example, if you went to the doctor and your copay was $15 dollars, and your doctor billed the insurance and received another $150, you would be entitled to the full $165 dollars. The reason for this is that, even though you do have insurance, when a third party causes your loss they are going to be responsible for all of the payments, not just your out of pocket costs. Often times, I have heard when insurance companies try to contact our clients immediately after the collision to try and get them early on and settle their claim for pennies on the dollar.

So, for starters you want to make sure they are paying for everything that you have incurred. The same goes for your lost wages.

In addition, to your past medical bills, the responsible party would also be responsible for all future medical costs that are reasonably certain to be needed and that are also related to the accident. For example, if your orthopedic doctor is recommending that you may need to get surgery on a herniated disk that you developed as a result of the accident that you were involved in, the insurance company is responsible to pay for all of that as well.

Almost all insurance companies do not want to pay for future medical care, and most of them even will dispute the medical treatment and care that you have received so far.

You should never attempt to negotiate with insurance companies on your own. They are ruthless and all they care about is money.

If you have been injured contact us for your free case evaluation. I will personally vouch that we will get you the full value for your injury claim, even if it means taking them to trial.

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.

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.