by

Michael Moody, Richard E. Vollertsen, and Neil O’Donnell of the Alaska Personal Injury Law Group have been selected for inclusion in the “Best Lawyers In America” 2011 publication. Selection to the “Best Lawyers In America” listing is based on exhaustive and rigorous peer-review evaluations by the top attorneys in the country. Mr. Moody was named a “Best Lawyer” in two different categories–personal injury litigation and products liability litigation. He has now been selected as a “Best Lawyer in America” every year for 19 years. Richard E. Vollertsen is now in a distinguished group of attorneys listed in the publication for over 10 years. Neil O’Donnell has been listed in the publication for the past five years.

These lawyers have also all received “AV” ratings from Martindale Hubbell, the highest national rating for legal ability and ethics. They have also been selected for similar national rankings, as described here,here, and here. Their law firm has also been listed in the Best Lawyers Law Firm rankings as #1 in the Products Liability category and by Benchmark: Litigation as one of the top 5 law firms in Alaska in its “highly recommended” listing, as seen here.

by

The percentage of crash fatalities that are alcohol-related dropped substantially from 1982 — when it was 53% of fatal crashes — to 34% of fatal crashes in 1997. Since 1997, the alcohol-related crash fatality rate has remained in the 33% to 35% range. The factors that led to the substantial decrease in alcohol-related crash fatalities include stiffer drunk driving laws; a higher minimum drinking age; “zero tolerance” laws for drivers under the age of 21; a decreasing proportion of the population falling in the higher risk 18 – 34 age group; an increase in the proportion of female drivers and an increase in the percentage of total miles driven by female drivers (female drivers are much less likely to drink and drive); and a small general reduction of per capita alcohol consumption. Since 1997, however, further improvement in these statistics has stalled. Given the huge tragic toll drunk drivers still inflict on our society, new strategies and new technologies need to be enlisted to achieve another sustained decrease in drunk driving deaths. One promising possibility for prior offenders is the alcohol monitoring bracelet which continuously reads and reports on any alcohol use. As Lindsay Lohan discovered with her bracelet, it is hard to argue with a judge who has hourly readings of your alcohol consumption.

Source: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810942.pdf

by

The Alaska Supreme Court recently issued a decision with important practical implications for individuals with personal injury claims in Alaska. In a case handled by Alaska Personal Injury Group attorney Neil O’Donnell, the Court ruled that a negligent driver (who was insured by State Farm) had to pay 75% of the plaintiff’s attorney fees for not accepting plaintiff’s earlier reasonable settlement offer. Yaple v. Okagawa, Opinion No. 6494 (July 16, 2010). Under Alaska Civil Rule 68, if a party makes a settlement offer and beats that offer by 5% or more at trial, the other party has to pay up to 75% of the offering party’s attorney fees. The issue before the Alaska Supreme Court was how to calculate this attorney fee award for a prevailing plaintiff who hired his attorney on a percentage contingency fee basis.

Seventy five percent (75%) of a contingency fee may be much smaller than 75% of the attorney fees calculated on an hourly basis (i.e., the hours worked by the attorney multiplied by the attorney’s normal hourly billing rate). Plaintiffs in Alaska with modest claims previously faced the risk of having to pay a large attorney fee award to the defendant if they did not “beat” the defendant’s offer of judgment while only receiving a modest attorney fee award if they instead prevailed. In the case handled by the Alaska Personal Injury Law Group, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that Rule 68 attorney fee awards could be calculated for both defendants and plaintiffs on an hourly basis even if the plaintiff hired his attorney under a percentage contingency fee. This ruling affirmed an attorney fee award to Mr. O’Donnell’s client that State Farm had argued was far too large.

The bottom line is that this decision substantially increases the incentives for insurance companies to accept reasonable settlement offers (instead of delaying, litigating, and hoping that claimants will eventually settle for less), at least when injured individuals are represented by competent counsel and the insurance company knows that their attorney is willing to go to trial.

Continue reading

by

Two attorneys with the Alaska Personal Injury Law Group, W. Michael Moody and Richard E. Vollertsen, were selected to be listed in Alaska Super Lawyers 2009, a publication of Thomson Reuters.

Mr. Moody received his law degree from the University of Arizona in 1972 where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review and received the academic award of Order of the Coif. He served as a law clerk to Judges Thomas Stewart and Victor Carlson in Juneau before moving to Anchorage. Mr. Moody has practiced law in Alaska since 1975 specializing in representing those injured by negligence or defective products, and claims against insurance companies for fraud and bad faith conduct against their policyholders.

Mr. Vollertsen was also selected as an Alaska Super Lawyer. Mr. Vollertsen has been a member of the Atkinson, Conway & Gagnon law firm since 1982. His practice includes complex litigation matters primarily involving products liability, wrongful death, and personal injury. He served as Law Clerk to Chief Justice Edmund Burke of the Alaska Supreme Court. Mr. Vollertsen was also editor-in-chief of University of San Francisco Law Review, 1980-81, and contributing editor to Alaska Court Review, 1983-2000. Mr. Vollertsen was also named by Best Lawyers in America as Alaska’s “Personal Injury Lawyer of the Year” for 2009.

Continue reading

by

Despite a great deal of room for improvement, our roads and highways have become significantly safer over the past decade — just as long as you are not on a motorcycle. The number of annual total vehicle fatalities trended downward from 41,501 fatalities in 1998 to 37,261 fatalities in 2008, an 11% decrease. During this same ten-year period, the country’s population increased 11% from 270 million to 304 million. Expressed on a per mile basis, the overall fatality rate decreased from 1.58 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles in 1998 to an historic low of 1.25 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles in 2008. These statistics make the fatality rates for motorcyclists all the more surprising and disturbing. Total annual motorcyclist fatalities increased from 2,294 in 1998 to 5,290 in 2008, a 231% increase. While partially explained by increased population and ridership, the fatality rate on a per-mile basis still went up significantly from 22.3 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles in 1998 to 36.6 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles in 2008, a 64% increase. As also apparent from these statistics, you are 29 times more likely to die per vehicle mile on a motorcycle than in a car or truck. There are varied causes for these adverse motorcycle statistics, including other drivers failing to “see” motorcycles, but the trends and overall results are not good.

Source: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811171.PDF

by

As noted in a recent post here, Allstate has instituted a systematic, nation-wide claims handling system designed to drive down the amount of money it pays on personal injury claims. That system came under review in a recent New Mexico case where five individuals sued Allstate for “low balling” their auto personal injury claims. The Court found that Allstate had violated fair claims handling requirements “by not attempting to effectuate . . . prompt, fair and equitable settlement[s],” “compelling each of the plaintiffs to litigate their claims through a jury trial to final judgment,” and improperly using the judicial system in “an attempt to delay or extort each of the plaintiffs into accepting less than the full value of their benefits under their policy.” The Court found Allstate’s conduct constituted “malicious abuse of process.” Martinez et. al. v. Allstate, Case No. D-0101-CV-200400963, County of Santa Fe, First Judicial District, oral order dated 11/13/09). This case illustrates that injured individuals often receive Allstate’s promised “Good Hands” treatment only if they accept Allstate’s “low ball” settlement offers. Otherwise they are subject to — as an Allstate consultant put it — the “Boxing Gloves” treatment. Be prepared to put on your boxing gloves when dealing with Allstate!

by

Over the last decade, Allstate and other insurance companies have adopted highly standardized claims handling systems designed to drive down the amount of money they pay on personal injury claims. These systems generally involve (1) reducing the percentage of injured individuals who hire an attorney by quickly contacting such individuals, building rapport with them, and making early (and low) settlement offers; (2) using main-office-controlled computer programs to provide low “recommended” claim settlement values to their adjustors; and (3) implementing a policy of vigorously litigating with injured individuals who do not accept the insurer’s low-ball settlement offers. For example, the Montana Supreme Court last year noted that there was a “high probability” under Allstate’s claims handling system that “an unrepresented claimant would receive less than a represented claimant.” Jacobsen v. Allstate, 215 P.3d 649, 659 – 60 (Montana 2010). Likewise, the federal district court stated in Wells v. Allstate, 210 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D. D.C. 2002), that “Allstate concedes that claimants represented by counsel receive settlements two to three times greater than those who proceed without counsel, and admits that the goal of [its redesigned claims system] was to reduce the level of attorney representation.” If anything, these observations are understated. Internal Allstate documents from that redesign effort state, for example, that “Opportunity [to save Allstate money] is driven by attorney involvement . . . Payments on represented claims is on average five times the size of uprepresented claims . . . Attorney representation can be reduced.” Insurance companies do not want to you to consult with an attorney for a reason, and that reason is to save them money.

by

One of the difficulties faced by our clients who have suffered “mild” traumatic brain injury (TBI) is that there has been no objective means of establishing that brain injury exists even though the clinical signs of dysfunction are present. This has often resulted in clients not getting the medical care that would help them with their rehabilitation, or they have suffered the undeserved claims by defense practioners that they were “malingering” or “magnifying” their symptoms.

Two new studies support the early data on the efficacy of a new MRI tool–diffusion tensor imaging–in the diagnosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Diffusion tensor imaging allows the care provider to visualize the brain’s white matter, which contains the fibers that connect nerve cells. Conventional MRI would commonly not reveal any differences between the patients with mild TBI and controls. DTI, however, is finding objective evidence on imaging that is consistent with a positive finding on neuropsychological testing.

One study at the University of New Mexico has found that diffusion tensor imaging can be used to reliably detect and track brain abnormalites in patients with mild TBI. The study compared patients with known mild TBI and found that conventional MRI did not reveal any differences between those with TBI and control subjects. The diffusion tensor imaging, however, demonstrated white matter abnormalities in the subjects known to have TBI. Thus, the technique was successful in finding objective evidence of injury when conventional MRI failed to do so. Another important finding was that, when the patients found to have such abnormalities were evaluted with diffusion tensor imaging 3-5 months later, a period by which recovery is expected, the diffusion tensor imaging was able to track these white matter changes, as well. The study concluded that diffusion tensor imaging can provide an objective biomarker that can assist in the classification and tracking of mild TBI injuries and their effects.

Continue reading

by

The Journal of the American College of Cardiology has just published a review of 44 years of research and has concluded that herbal products can contribute to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The risks noted include increased bleeding, and reducing or increasing the effect of a patient’s cardiovascular medications, Many of the ingredients used (aloe vera, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, and green tea) can interact with a patient’s heart medications and lead to serious adverse reactions. For example, some ingredients increase the blood levels of statins, calcium channel antagonists, and several anti-arrhythmic drugs. Another herbal ingredient is known to inhibit platelet aggregation and can lead to increased bleeding risk when the patient is also taking anti-coagulants such as aspirin, Plavix, or Coumadin. Some ingredients (garlic, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, saw palmeto) can have their own cardiovascular effects, and some can induce arrhythmias on their own. The authors, all Mayo Clinic physicians, have called for increased regulation of the products.

Sources:

“Use of Herbal Products and Potential Interactions in Patients With Cardiovascular Diseases,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2020; 55:515-525.

Continue reading

by

Litigation by the Alaska Personal Injury Law Group has been cited in the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics for its role in aiding the FDA in its decision to finally rule that ephedra products were adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The litigation, Talbert v. E’ola Products, Inc., 3AN-97-4046, was handled by Richard E. Vollertsen and arose out of stroke injuries suffered by a young woman using an ephedra weight loss product that had also been spiked with ephedrine hydrochloride.

Source:

“Clinical Pharmacology and Dietary Supplements: An Evolving Relationship,” Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Vol. 87, No. 2, Feb. 2010.

Contact Information
The Plaintiff's Litigation Group within Atkinson Conway & Gagnon, Inc.
420 L St #500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Anchorage: 907-276-1700 Toll Free Outside Anchorage: 1 800-478-1900 Fax: 907-921-7438

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Atkinson, Conway & Gagnon, Inc.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design