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.
Insurance companies are in business to do one thing: make money. Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento CA has fought for its clients for many years. When the insurance company digs their heels in and refuses to offer a reasonable settlement, we go to war. We recently had an interesting case where our refusal to bend to pressure to settle for less than what a case was worth really worked to our client’s advantage. She had medical bills over $38,000.00. The third-party policy was only $100,000.00 and it seemed pretty reasonable to us expect to be offered the policy limits immediately. That was not the case. The insurance company refused to offer the policy limits and in fact made an insulting offer of only $50,000.00. Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento CA wasted no time filing the lawsuit and beginning the discovery process. Discovery is when each side asks questions and requests documents in order to get more information from each other. Written discovery is the first thing that goes out after an answer has been received from a defendant. With that information we can figure out what else we want to know and what we need to clarify at deposition. Depositions are a very important part of the discovery process. It is like an interview. When a plaintiff has a deposition the opposing counsel asks our client questions orally. Sometimes it is videotaped, sometimes not. The witness is put under oath and a court reporter takes down every word that is said. The defense can get a good idea about the type of person our client is by meeting them in person. Depositions will usually reveal if a client would make a good witness at trial. In the case I am talking about our client did a fantastic job. With Alan Laskin and Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento CA by her side the entire time, she was confident, honest, earnest, and calm. Our client blew the opposing counsel out of the water. They were impressed with her. After her deposition was taken, the defense knew without a doubt that she would make a great witness if the case proceeded to trial. In order to avoid a jury giving our client an award greater than their policy limits, thirty days after our client’s deposition, the insurance carrier agreed to settle for the policy limits of $100,000.00. Much of the credit for this victory has to go to the client. She was properly prepared and went in to the deposition with confidence. Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento CA could have backed down and accepted the defense’s offer, but we knew that our client was in the right and that she was worth fighting for, and after her deposition, the defense did too. Need advice? Feel you have a potential personal injury case? Contact Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento California today.
Our client injured her back in a car collision in November 2013. She underwent conservative treatment, but it did not help her symptoms. She underwent surgery on May 13, 2014. The surgery reduced some of her symptoms, but her back continued to be extremely painful. After an x-ray and another MRI the cause was finally revealed, there was an infection in her spine. Throughout our client’s treatment, the Law Offices of Laskin Balma in Sacramento California had requested that the adverse party disclose their policy limits multiple times. We sent medical records showing the conservative treatment, the injections my client underwent, and even the necessary surgery. Nothing moved the adverse party and the insurance company was not allowed to disclose the limit. However, once the infection in her spine was revealed, the policy was no longer our biggest concern. Her doctor immediately installed a pick line in her arm in order to effectively administer the antibiotics and referred our client to a specialist who would monitor her treatment for the life-threatening infection. Treatment included six appointments with the specialist, the administration of antibiotics by our client’s daughter, weekly blood draws to determine her progress, and home nurse visits once a week to clean and maintain the pick line. The antibiotics themselves were very expensive and had to be paid for in advance. Our client could not afford this treatment and called Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in tears, convinced she was going to die. Our office set her up with a medical funding company and we were able to get her the treatment she needed and I am glad to say that she is doing much better. Infection is a risk everyone undergoing surgery takes. It can happen to anyone in any hospital and it just happened to happen to our client this time. Together we were able to address the problem head on and save her life. The infection was the tipping point for the insurance company. Because of treatment she had already undergone and the additional treatment necessary to treat the infection, we were able to get a policy limits offer from the adverse insurance company in the amount of $250,000.00. Some people may wonder why the adverse driver was responsible for the infection and the answer is because she got the infection through the treatment of injuries that the adverse driver caused. There is a chain of events that occurred due the actions of the adverse driver. The car collision led to injuries which led our client to treat for those injuries which led her get an infection in her spine. There is no break in the chain of causation. If my client had gotten the infection because of surgery on her elbow, which was not injured in the collision, then the adverse driver would not have been responsible for the treatment of the infection. Need advice? Feel you have a potential personal injury case? Contact Laskin Balma Attorneys at Law in Sacramento California today.
On March 14, 2015, Alan Laskin began a trial in Sacramento County concerning a woman who was attacked by two dogs. She was knocked down into a drainage ditch on the side of the road. The dogs were run off by a neighbor who rescued our client by pulling her over the fence onto his property. These dogs were known menaces in the neighborhood and their owner, the defendant, did nothing to protect the public from their violent behavior. The defendant tried to claim that it wasn’t his dogs that perpetrated the attack, but our client was sure they had come from the defendant’s yard. The home insurance company sided with their insured and fought the claim tooth and nail. Despite multiple anecdotes from neighbors detailing the violent history of the dogs in question, the defense refused to move from their stance of denial. Early on in the case we served an Offer to Compromise Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 998 for $79,999.99. This is a very serious offer for settlement because to make it or reject it comes with consequences. The offer was rejected. Right before trial, we made another 998 offer. This time for $39,999.99. Our client did not want to deal with the stress of going to trial and we honored her request to try and settle the case. It was no use though, the defendant’s attorney rejected that offer as well. During trial, the defendant continued to claim that our client was lying. He then stated that every witness that testified against him was lying, including the neighbor that saved our client. We had to subpoena practically the whole neighborhood, but everyone was in agreement that the defendant’s dogs were violent and uncontrolled. The defendant’s attitude that he just didn’t care that his dogs had injured this woman came across to the jury and in the end, they sided with our client. Alan even had a very “Perry Mason” moment. While questioning the veterinarian hired by the defense to say it couldn’t have been the defendant’s dog that bit our client because of the dog’s poor health, it was revealed that the subject dog was missing a tooth. The vet testified that it would have a different bite pattern than a dog with all of its teeth. Alan then showed a picture of one of the puncture wounds on the client and asked her if it would look like this (the picture showed two punctures, a space, and then a third puncture). The vet agreed that a bite mark from the defendant’s dog would look like the picture. We believe that was the nail in the coffin moment for the jury. There was no doubt that it was the defendant’s dogs that attacked. The Law Offices of Laskin Balma always endeavors to do right by our clients. In this case, our client did not want to go to trial and would have accepted a much lower amount to avoid the stress. We made the offer on her behalf and she was incredibly fortunate that the defense did not take it. At trial the truth prevailed and the jury awarded $165,000.00 over what our client would have accepted.
On November 10, 2022, Laskin Balma attorneys began a three-day underinsured motorist Arbitration which arose out of an August 10, 2015, motor vehicle collision in which our client was significantly injured while in the course and scope of her employment. For Laskin Balma attorneys, the team of Diane Balma, Alan Laskin, and Christopher Holleran, appeared for our injured client. Our client settled quickly for policy limits of $25,000.00 with the adverse driver’s insurance company. Laskin Balma attorneys then initiated a claim for policy limits against our client’s employer’s underinsured motorist coverage provided by Travelers Insurance. That’s when the real work began. The case was challenging in that our client had multiple pre-existing physical conditions and limitations. Although Travelers conceded that the other driver was responsible for the collision, it disputed that the collision, itself, rendered our client unable to work. Travelers rejected our multiple demands to settle our client’s claim within its available policy limits (approximately $1.7 million) and never even made a meaningful offer. After conducting a thorough evaluation of our client’s pre-collision and post-collision symptoms and injuries, we strongly believed that Travelers Insurance had jumped to erroneous conclusions early in the claims process and made assumptions about our client’s injuries and symptoms that we could disprove at Arbitration. And we set out to do just that! We hired credible medical experts and tasked them with thoroughly evaluating the evidence. This process confirmed what we knew to be true—that Travelers had prematurely and wrongly denied our client’s claim, in part, by failing to objectively evaluate our client’s claim; and, in so doing, added insult to injury. Once we knew we could establish that our client had sustained catastrophic injuries in the collision, we set out to determine the value of the claim, including the amount of wages she had lost and would lose from being unable to work for the rest of her life. For this, we hired a highly regarded economic expert. At each step in the process leading up to and during the arbitration, we repeatedly demanded that Travelers tender its policy limits and rightfully compensate our client for her losses, but it refused to do so. Instead, Travelers “dug in”, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it had wrongfully denied our client’s claim. Travelers’ failure to acknowledge how seriously our client was injured and that she could no longer work was demoralizing to her and caused her unnecessary anxiety and frustration. After a three-day arbitration, the Arbitrator issued an award in favor of our client in the amount of $3,609,051.80 for her pain and suffering, past and future treatment and past and future wage loss. This outcome is a classic example of why and how effective legal representation makes a difference for our clients and how it can make a difference for you!