The Role of a Female Attorney in Personal Injury Law
When facing the aftermath of an accident or injury, choosing the right legal representation can make all the difference in the outcome of your case. While personal injury law has long been a male...
Read more
How to Choose the Best Personal Injury Attorney in Sacramento
If you’ve been injured due to someone else’s negligence, finding the best personal injury attorney in Sacramento is crucial to securing the compensation you deserve. With so many lawyers to choose...
Read more
10 Common Mistakes to Avoid After a Personal Injury Accident
A personal injury accident can be overwhelming and confusing, especially in the immediate aftermath. Many victims unintentionally make mistakes that can weaken their legal claims or delay the...
Read more
Essential Steps to Take After a Car Accident
Understanding the Impact of Car Accidents Car accidents can be sudden and overwhelming, leaving individuals unsure about their next steps. However, knowing what to do in these situations can...
Read more
The Role of a Female Attorney in Personal Injury Law
How to Choose the Best Personal Injury Attorney in Sacramento
10 Common Mistakes to Avoid After a Personal Injury Accident
Essential Steps to Take After a Car Accident
The Role of a Female Attorney in Personal Injury Law
When facing the aftermath of an accident or injury, choosing the right legal representation can make all the difference in the outcome of your case. While personal injury law has long been a male...
How to Choose the Best Personal Injury Attorney in Sacramento
If you’ve been injured due to someone else’s negligence, finding the best personal injury attorney in Sacramento is crucial to securing the compensation you deserve. With so many lawyers to choose...
10 Common Mistakes to Avoid After a Personal Injury Accident
A personal injury accident can be overwhelming and confusing, especially in the immediate aftermath. Many victims unintentionally make mistakes that can weaken their legal claims or delay the...
Essential Steps to Take After a Car Accident
Understanding the Impact of Car Accidents Car accidents can be sudden and overwhelming, leaving individuals unsure about their next steps. However, knowing what to do in these situations can...
View more
Amazing story in the case spotlight this month at Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento CA. A few years ago, attorney Nathan J. Kabanuck went to trial in an interesting case that shows how the Law Offices of Laskin Balma will go to bat for a client over as small an amount as a few hundred dollars if it means protecting the client’s interests. This case is a rear-end collision that ended up in trial despite having straight-forward facts. Our client had minimal treatment, only two visits to Methodist Hospital immediately following the collision. Without medical insurance and the adverse insurance company not covering such bills, our client, Joseph, sought an attorney so they would be paid. Joseph also lost time from work. Special damages totaled only $4,085.50. Joseph wasn’t looking for much, but he did need to get his medical bills paid. We submitted a demand in June 2012. Unfortunately, the Access General insurance adjuster was not responding to any attempt at negotiation. We literally had no contact from them for over six months. Despite being a smaller case, the attorney decided enough was enough and Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law filed a lawsuit. We served an Offer to Compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 with the Summons and Complaint in the amount of $15,000.00 (the defendant’s policy limits). The 998 expired with no acceptance and we carried on with the case, including discovery and depositions. The opposing counsel issued a 998 in the amount of $6,500.00 to our client, however, with attorney fees and medical bills the recovery for Joseph was too small to accept the offer. However, at the Mandatory Settlement Conference opposing counsel offered $7,000.00 to settle the case and Plaintiff offered $9,000.00 to resolve the case. Due to the defense attorney’s unwillingness to negotiate reasonably, Mr. Kabanuck served the defense attorney with a CCP section 998 offer to settle right then and there at the settlement conference for $9,000. A trial readiness conference was held and at the request of the Judge, Mr. Kabanuck and Plaintiff agreed to take $8,000.00, basically meeting the opposing counsel in the middle. The opposing counsel refused to offer the $8,000.00 to get it done. The stubbornness of the defense counsel and insurance company then became even worse. The defense attorney moved to continue the trial because they were not ready to proceed. We adamantly opposed the motion seeking to find resolution for Joseph. The Judge ruled and the motion was denied, but at the hearing, opposing counsel told the Judge that he would offer Plaintiff $7,500.00. After much soul searching and discussion, our client decided to accept the $7,500.00 against attorney advice. This office called up the opposing counsel at our client’s request to finish the case. Opposing counsel then refused to settle for $7,500.00. Mr. Kabanuck informed Joseph the defense counsel pulled his offer. At that juncture the Law Offices of Alan M. Laskin calmly came to the conclusion the defense attorney and the insurance company would play around with our client no more and decided this case was going to go to trial. Negotiations were called off and we prepared for trial. We were confident a jury would see the full value of this case and through trial Joseph would obtain vindication. Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law won our case with a jury verdict of $10,595.50. Because the award was greater than our 998 offer the defense also had to pay for our trial expenses and interest. The total amount after judgment, trial costs, and interest: $13,035.70. $5,535.70 more than opposing counsel would have paid had he just approached the case in a reasonable manner. Joseph was pleased with the result as was Mr. Kabanuck. Moreover, this case sent a clear message that Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento CA will try any case, regardless of how small or large, if the opposing side is being unreasonable and the interests of our clients are best served by going to trial. Need advice? Feel you have a potential personal injury case? Contact Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento California today.
When the personal injury Law Offices of Laskin Balma in Sacramento California went to court to hear the verdict, the whole office was somber. After only one hour of deliberations, we were sure that it was not good news. Usually, when juries decide to award monetary damages, they take a while to come to the numbers. It’s a discussion among the jury members, some are high, some are low, and they need to negotiate to reach an agreed-upon figure. A fast jury verdict can sometimes mean that the talk about money did not take place. When we received the call that the jury came in with $107,120.66, we were shocked and wondered how it happened so fast. We got the story later that afternoon. During his closing argument, Alan M. Laskin personal injury attorney had mapped out what he thought the Jury should award. He gave reasons and explanation for the numbers he suggested and when the Jury went in to deliberation, they agreed with him. They used his suggested numbers except they decreased past general damages by $5,000.00. This is what can happen when an attorney is responsible and prepared. Alan M. Laskin asked for a reasonable award and his client got it! This case was interesting because it involved a bicyclist who was riding at night without a light on his bike. For those of you who don’t know, California Vehicle Code section 21201(d) requires that a bicycle operated during darkness must be equipped with a headlamp (21201(e) allows a rider to have a lamp on a helmet in lieu of this). Our client didn’t have a headlamp or a helmet, but the area was well-lit with street lamps, there was an independent witness who could see our client approaching, and the Defendant’s headlights actually moved across the bicyclist’s body. The defendant turned left and struck the plaintiff causing him to fly across the hood of his vehicle and down to the ground on the other side. It was a hard hit and injured our client pretty badly. The traffic collision report put the defendant at fault, but he never took responsibility for the crash and always maintained that our client hit him (even though the property damage said otherwise). Even at trial the defendant refused to admit it was his fault. Our bicyclist was a good guy, he admitted that he should have had a lamp. He said he thought the defendant saw him because it wasn’t that dark due to the street lamps and the defendant’s headlights moved across his body. He was sure that the defendant had seen him. Our expert witness made it clear that the defendant should have seen him even without the bicycle having a lamp. In fact, in deposition, the defense expert witness admitted that the defendant should have been able to see our client and stop before the collision. But the defendant stubbornly refused to take any responsibility for the crash. In the end the Jury awarded 70% liability to the defendant and 30% to our client. Our client accepted his portion of responsibility with grace and was pleased with the verdict. Even with the 30% reduction, we beat our very first Offer to Compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, meaning that all costs are going to be paid by the defense because if they would have just accepted our reasonable offer for settlement two years ago, we wouldn’t have had to incur those costs. Attorneys can sometimes have the reputation of being greedy and overestimating what a case is worth. People believe that by starting high, if it gets reduced, you’ll still have a good number. We don’t operate like that, it only makes juries angry. Alan M. Laskin personal injury attorney knew what the case was worth because of years and years of experience. He knew how to explain it to a jury so that it would make sense and in the end they agreed with him (well mostly, they did take off $5,000.00 of past pain and suffering). Alan knows how to take a case to trial and win. Even if liability isn’t 100%. If you’ve been in a bicycle versus vehicle collision, you need Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law on your side. Need advice? Feel you have a potential personal injury case? Contact Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento California today.
The case spotlight this month focuses on a client with C.R.P.S. This is a serious and debilitating pain disease. It stands for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. When the incident occurred, our client Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento California had a history of low back pain due to degenerative disc disease, but he was able to play basketball almost everyday, walk his dog, and mow the lawn. After the incident, he was barely able to walk. Our client’s mother rented a home from the defendant. She repeatedly requested that the owner of the property trim a large tree which constituted a dangerous condition. She was afraid a limb would fall off and strike one or both of her small grandchildren who lived with her. At her wits end, she finally asked her son, our client, to trim the tree for her. He agreed. During the course of the work, a limb of the tree broke off unexpectedly and caused our client from the law offices of Laskin Balma attorneys in Sacramento California to fall to the ground, landing on his right foot. He sustained a transverse comminuted fracture of the mid portion of the calcaneus and required plates and screws to be put into his ankle. He underwent surgery, then developed an infection. Our client could not catch a break. A year and three months after the incident, still in pain and struggling to get through his daily life, our client was finally diagnosed with C.R.P.S. This disease is not well understood, but it happens most often after an injury. The body does not react as expected and the brain receives constant signals of pain even after the injury has healed. The defense tried to argue that the injury was his own fault as he was not a licensed tree-trimmer and should not have been up there in the first place. Our theory on liability was that the owner of the property had a duty to keep the property in a safe condition and when she failed to do so, it was not improper for the tenant to take matters into her own hand and ask her son for help. If the owner had taken care of the rotten tree like the tenant had asked, our client would not have had to do the job himself in order to protect his nieces. The defense offered $50,000.00 to the plaintiff to settle the case. But because our client’s medical bills exceeded $165,000.00, he could not accept. All parties agreed to a binding arbitration. The arbitrator had two findings: 1) He found that the Plaintiff’s case was worth $767,795.78 2) He found the Plaintiff was partially at fault for his injury and assigned comparative fault of 80%, reducing the award to $153,559.16 Arbitration in this case was the best way to get our client some compensation. Putting this case in front of a jury would have been very risky. When liability is an issue, sometimes it is more rewarding to put the question to an arbitrator who knows liability arguments and will not dismiss a theory out of hand, like a layman on a jury might. Instead he took in all the facts, found that both parties had a hand in the incident and most importantly, found that the permanent damage our client suffered in the form of this debilitating pain disease C.R.P.S. was worth $600,000.00 in general damages. Whether we take a case to arbitration, trial, mediation, or settle it in pre-litigation, our firm is known for doing what is in the best interest of our clients and doing everything we can to get them the compensation they deserve. Need advice? Contact Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento California today.