|
Lawyer Stuck with Chiropractic Lien
Paul Riegleman, D.C. v. Eric Krieg, et al.,
03-1826 (Recommended for publication in the official reports). Krieg was injured in a car accident in the course of his employment and ran up over $19,000 in chiropractic treatment with Riegleman. Both Krieg and his attorney signed a "Doctor's Lien" agreeing to reimburse Riegleman out of the proceeds of any settlement. Krieg settled with his employer's workers compensation insurer. As part of the settlement, the insurer reimbursed Riegleman only $13,210.55, based on an independent medical examination performed at the insurer's request. Krieg and his attorney refused to pay the balance, relying on the IME report. Krieg's attorney gave Riegleman a deadline by which he was to take the necessary action to enforce the lien, and, when no action was taken, the attorney dispersed the remaining funds to Krieg.
The court of appeals held that the "Doctor's Lien" was a valid assignment for which Krieg and his attorney received consideration from Riegleman. Riegleman provided treatment with the understanding that he would be reimbursed at a future date. Under the terms of the assignment, Krieg and his attorney were obligated to pay the balance. The court further held that the attorney was obligated to either hold the funds indefinitely until the dispute with Riegleman was resolved, or file a declaratory judgment action, but under no circumstances should the attorney have dispersed the disputed amount from his client trust account. The court cautioned that if an attorney signs a "doctor's lien" with no intention of dispersing the amount due, a more serious question of misrepresentation and fraud could arise.
|
|
Jury Doesn't Fall for UPS Driver's Story
Troy Viegut v. Michael Smith, et al.,
Milw. Co. Case No. 02 CV 4459. General Casualty and Eiche & Frakes, S.C., successfully defended a trip and fall claim filed by the Gruber Law Office on behalf of Troy Viegut. Viegut, a UPS driver/delivery person, claimed that he sustained a permanent injury to his wrist when he tripped and fell in the Smith's driveway. The Smiths were insured by General Casualty at the time. Viegut claimed that he fell as a result of his foot catching on a dog leash lying across the Smith's side stoop. The Gruber firm argued that the Smiths, as home owners, owed Viegut a duty to not to have a dog leash lying near their side entrance. General Casualty argued that as a delivery person Viegut was trained to look out for tripping hazards, such as a dog leash, and that he failed to look where he was walking because he was in a hurry.
Prior to trial, General Casualty stipulated to the reasonableness and necessity of Viegut's medical bills and past lost wages, which totaled over $90,000, in exchange for Viegut limiting his total recoverable damages to General Casualty's $100,000 policy limit, thereby eliminating any excess exposure to the Smiths. At trial, the defense called Viegut's supervisor who testified that UPS drivers are trained to look carefully about them for any tripping hazards when making a delivery, and that dog leashes are one of the tripping hazards a driver should expect to encounter. The jury returned a verdict finding Viegut 100% causally negligent, and awarded only $14,000 for past pain and suffering and $6,000 for future pain and suffering.
|
