Recent Blog Posts

Greedy Lawyers!

Angel Law PC — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 18:45:00 GMT

Many lawyers feel that most of the attorney advertising in the market place damages the legal profession, and a persuasive number of studies seem to support that belief. When lawyers advertise, especially injury litigators, it seems a little classless to many because we ultimately earn some portion of our living, a large portion, because someone was hurt. But like any business, including Apple and Microsoft, Ford and Chevy, the battle for customers among law firms, especially personally injury law firms, is a serious matter. One law firm's advertising efforts have recently brought an outcry from many fellow lawyers who insist the ads only reinforce a negative image of us so many lawyers work tirelessly to change.

It's an interesting dilemma. I'm generally a pretty live-and-let-live kind of guy. Businesses as well as law firms do have the right to make their own marketing choices. It can be argued that the harm to our collective reputation as lawyers from crass advertising is probably overstated. I'm not saying there is no harm, just that it may well be overstated. Here is the biggest problem with the legal profession: We cost powerful, privileged interests a lot of money by holding them accountable for their negligence and for that our reputation will always be attacked. For. Ever. Crass advertising gives anti-lawyers some ammunition, but they have always done pretty well with or without our help.

From a purely advertising stand point, the ad sets the firm apart and is memorable. Therefore, it is probably effective - from an advertising standpoint. I mean, here we are talking about it. There is a class of potential clients who will say, "I'm calling them! They are honest enough to admit they are greedy lawyers (which I already know all lawyers are) and I like their moxy! Those guys will fight like hell to get me more $ than other lawyers might." Frankly, a lot of people who feel cheated, hurt, and exploited want a successful greedy attorney. To many those terms equate to a high level of expertise. That's what the Successful, Greedy, Attorneys ad hopes to accomplish, and it probably does. It's actually bold, imaginative and creative, even if it frustrates most of us lawyers, including me, because it concedes a fiction that we constantly try to disprove - the myth that we are without character, integrity or morality.

But the question remains, regardless of its effectiveness, does the negative impact of the ad on our profession outweigh the benefit it provides this handful of lawyers? Maybe. But can a state bar that regulates attorney conduct and legal practice prohibit it? It's doubtful, because it can be argued that nothing about the ad is dishonest or misleading. And that's a fair argument. Who could prove that these attorneys who say they are greedy, aren't? Pressure from the legal community might possibly persuade this firm to pull the daring ad, but that pressure would have to be significant.

Anyway, does the public really hate lawyers for being greedy? There is persuasive evidence that Americans don't hate us because they think we are greedy. Americans don't have a big problem with greed, whether they admit it or not. Joe Flaco, QB for Superbowl champs the Baltimore Ravens, signed a 120 million dollar contract for playing football. That's one hundred twenty million dollars! For playing football! Most Americans won't lose any sleep over this, rather, sales for his jersey will and have sky rocketed. You won't hear many people around the watercooler bemoaning Flaco, the NFL, Major League Baseball, or the NBA.

America's real problem is with dishonesty; they hate us (those that do) because they think we are dishonest. This ad works because it is saying, at this firm, at least we are honest.

Incidentally, lawyers get a bad rap. When Shakespeare wrote, "let's kill all the lawyers" in Henry The Sixth it wasn't a denouncement of the profession, rather it was really a compliment. The completely unremarkable character who uttered it, Dick the Butcher, was lobbying for social revolution and the installment of a dictator, to which lawyers represented an insurmountable obstacle. If you get rid of lawyers, he was saying, you get rid of social order. For an entertaining look at a world without lawyers watch this short video produced by Consumer Attorneys of California.

Insurance Companies Should Play by the Same Rules as Everyone Else in Oregon

Erik Kancler — Tue, 07 May 2013 19:47:00 GMT

Imagine you've just purchased a new minivan. Kids are growing up, starting school, and you need a safe way to get everyone around town. Two weeks later the engine blows up and despite purchasing an extended five-year, fifty-thousand mile powertrain warrantee the dealer says tough luck.

Or you've recently bought a home only to find out that the roof leaks. To protect your investment you purchase a new 30-year roof and then watch in disbelief as major portions blow off as a result of a product defect. When you complain to the manufacturer, they in turn blow you off.

In cases like these, Oregon consumers can turn to Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act to seek justice. The UTPA is the backbone of consumer protection in Oregon. It provides consumers and the State Attorney General with the power to challenge companies that fail to deliver on the promises they've made and helps to lessen consumer abuse by deterring would-be bad actors.

But if your beef is with an insurance company, you're out of luck. They can promise the sun, the moon, and the stars, but when they fail to deliver, Oregon law is on their side, not yours.

That's because unlike the auto dealer or the manufacturer/installer of your roof (or every single other company in every single other industry doing business in Oregon) your insurance company is exempt from the UTPA's requirements.

This isn’t the case in Washington. Most other states, in fact, include the industry in their unlawful and deceptive practice acts. That the industry presently enjoys such an exemption in Oregon is a direct result of its political influence in Salem. This session alone there more than 50 lobbyists defending the industry's stance on the issue and opposing Oregon House Bill 3160A, which would add insurance to the State's UTPA.

That any one industry would be exempted from a regulatory framework as important as the UTPA is unfair. That of all industries it would be the insurance industry – which itself represents an essential backbone of consumer protection – is especially troubling. If anything, given the unique and crucial role insurance plays in people's lives, and that in many cases we're actually required by law to purchase it, insurance should be the first industry covered.

In 1994, David Killion's Warrenton home lost major portions of its roof during a winter storm with winds nearing 90 miles per hour. Afterwards, his insurance company sent out a claims adjuster who offered $3,000 for damage that local contractors estimated at over $20,000. Killion had no choice but to fight.

It took him over four years and considerable expense to get the insurance company to cover the damages. In the meantime, his house began to stink, black mold grew everywhere, his wife developed asthma, and he and his family were too embarrassed to invite friends or family over for get-togethers.

In 2004, a fire devastated Michael Mckeon's potato packing factory in Merrill – a factory that his family had owned and operated since World War II. His insurance company not only failed to pay but dragged his family's name through the mud in the process. It took nearly six years to reach a settlement and clear his family's name, and the business was never able to re-open.

When Portland-based Zidell Industries received a cleanup notice from DEQ related to industrial contamination in 1997, its insurers balked. Eventually vindicated by court victories and settlements with all but the most obstinate of its insurers, Zidell has spent $20 million over multiple decades in an effort to receive coverage.

"If Zidell had been able to assert claims and seek penalties or unfair claim settlement practices, the insurer would have perhaps been compelled to settle the case years ago," a representative from Zidell recently told the Oregon Legislature.

Among those who testified in support of HB 3160 is former Oregon Governor, Supreme Court Justice, and Insurance Commissioner, Ted Kulongoski:

Years ago, when I served as Oregon's Insurance Commissioner, I testified against adding insurance companies to the UTPA in a similar piece of legislation. But times have changed—and I have changed my mind. The financial services meltdown in 2007 and the recent recession, which cost many Oregon citizens their jobs, their homes, their retirements, and their futures, must be a wake-up call for public officials to provide greater consumer protection against fraudulent business practices in the financial services markets.

Although the insurance industry disagrees with this perspective, there is simply no good reason, principled, pragmatic, or otherwise, for why the goods and services we purchase and investments we make should be covered by the UTPA but the insurance policies that we purchase to protect those goods, services, and investments should not.

Oregon House Bill 3610A would end the insurance industry's unfair exemption from the UTPA and provide Oregon consumers and businesses much-needed consumer protection. The Oregon House of Representatives did its job in passing the bill over to the Senate. Now its time for Senate leaders to ensure that this bill gets to Governor Kitzhaber's desk.

There is simply no good reason, principled, pragmatic, or otherwise, for why the goods and services we purchase and investments we make should be covered by the UTPA but the insurance policies that we purchase to protect those goods, services, and investments should not.

You can show your support for HB 3160 by signing the petition at this link which will be sent to your Senator.

Oregon House Bill 3160A is scheduled for a public hearing in the Senate Committee on General Government, Consumer, Small Business Protection On May 8th from 3-5pm at the State Capitol, Hearing Room B. For more information on this issue, please visit Economic Fairness Oregon's website.

By Erik Kancler of Bend, Oregon. Erik works in government and media relations and is writing on behalf of Economic Fairness Oregon. A former BlueOregon contributor, Erik has previously worked as a scientist, journalist, nonprofit director, and as policy adviser to the Oregon Senate Democrats. Previously, Erik contributed "The new industry that's creating big problems for Oregon consumers"

How Do I Sue the Federal Government

Angel Law PC — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 23:16:00 GMT

Can I Bring an Injury Lawsuit Against the Federal Government

What if a doctor at the VA Hospital makes a mistake, commits medical malpractice, and I am injured as a result? Can I sue the doctor, assuming I have a legally valid claim? Yes, the Federal government or a government employee can be sued in tort for negligently causing a person harm or injury, but only if the the government employee is actually on the job. This is called operating within the course and scope of his or her employment. If a US Postal worker rear ends you in his own car while he's off work, it's hard to imagine circumstances in which the Federal government is going to be responsible. But if an employee of the US government, while on the job, negligently causes harm to another person, the injured person will most likely be able to file a lawsuit against the United States.

This was not always the case. Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the government was and is immune from being sued unless it consents to being sued. Prior to 1946, if the US Government, a government employee or agency caused a person harm through negligence, the injured citizen's only recourse was to ask Congress to enact private legislation to afford some manner of relief for the harm. And in fact this is what people did. But in 1946 Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) which allowed an injured citizen to file a federal lawsuit and thereby have an opportunity for a judicial remedy. The new act, the FTCA, was signed into law by president Harry Truman.

The FTCA of 1946 was in may ways the result of frustration in Congress over the burden of evaluting thousands of legal claims every session. Prior to 1946 a citizen with a tort claim against the government had to request that Congress enact a private bill for relief; these requests were referred to the Committee on Claims in the House of Representatives. If the hearings committee took favorable action on the claim, it was forwarded to the House where it was placed on the Private Calender for determination. The process was cumbersome and hugely ineffecient. Most members of Congress didn't consider service on the claims committee a desirable appointment.

Today the process is much different. Under the FTCA, tort claims against the US government or a government employee are filed in US District Court. Often times, these are claims against doctors or other health care professionals employed by the US government, typically for alleged medical malpractice in VA hospitals. Other claims against the government might include premises liability, like slipping in the post office because of a dangerous condition, negligent harm in a national park, or getting hit by an FBI agent while driving.

There are numerous tricky aspects to pursing a claim under the FTCA. For instance there are several types of tort claims that exempt under the FTCA including assault, false arrest, libel, slander and malicious prosecution.

FTCA claims are quite different than claims against other normal citizen defendants. If you think the government or a government employee is responsible for causing you harm, you should call a FTCA attorney to make sure you protect your legal right to file a lawsuit. A medical malpractice lawyer at Angel Law PC can help you evaluate medical claims you may have against the VA hospital for negligent treatment. We handle claims against the US government at Angel Law under the FTCA, including medical malpractice cases and others; we're located in dowtown Portland at 621 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1250, Portland Oregon.

Why I Went to Law School

Angel Law PC — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 03:53:00 GMT

I met with a client a little while back because she'd been fired from her job at a lumber mill in Oregon. "Mary" is fifty years old, she'd given eight hard years of dutiful labor to the plant, and recently bought a manufactured home that she put on a little plot right next to the freeway. You could throw a rock from her front door at the passing cars. Mary picked up as many overtime shifts as she could at the plant, regularly working a double shift of sixteen hours. She bought a new F250 a few years ago and could not have been prouder of it; it was a symbol of her hard work and responsible choices.

Two years ago, Mary's father was diagnosed with well advanced lung cancer. She asked the plant for family medical leave and took some time off work to care for her Dad in his final weeks. One day she was called by plant supervisors as she sat next to her dying father's bed. They put her on speaker phone at the plant to tell her matter-of-factly that she was fired for not adequately checking in. This was just what she needed in the middle of her father's ordeal. She didn't know if she could handle another blow on top of losing her father. Her father passed away shortly afterwards. Mary's labor union went to bat for her with determination and forced the plant to give Mary her job back. But she had cross hairs on her back since the day she was reinstated. Plant supervisors were not going to let Mary or her Union dictate who they could fire or when.

Fast forward almost two years. Despite having shown the mental toughness of a prize fighter and an unwillingness to be driven from her livelihood at the plant, Mary was finally terminated. Plant supervisors said that Mary's ten-minute shift break had run long. They said it was the third break in 9 months that ran minutes past the allotted ten minutes she was allowed. Plant management had finally puzzled through the problem of getting rid of Mary, after many failed attempts, in a way that Mary's Union couldn't seem to defend. Always proactive and responsible, Mary sold the F250 within days of her termination and bought an older pick-up with a little rust and some engine problems.

As if that wasn't enough. The plant challenged her right to draw unemployment benefits alleging that her "pattern" of overlong breaks (3 in 9 months) constituted a willful and wanton disregard for their interests and it amounted to misconduct. Amazingly, the Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear the dispute agreed with the plant. Having left Mary without enough money to buy a tank of gas, I privately wondered if they'd send some thugs over to her soon-to-be-foreclosed house to rough her up. I was astounded at the plant's malice.

I entered the picture at about this time and I filed a request to the Employment Appeals Board for a review of the ALJ decision, I requested and reviewed the transcripts of the hearing then drafted and submitted a written argument for Mary in an effort to get her unemployment benefits reinstated. I had not done any administrative law to speak of and never drafted a written argument for the Employment Appeals Board. I hammered our argument together out of whole cloth without a template to even know if my formatting complied with convention. One morning about a week later I got an email from the EAB with an attached decision. The email from EAB was one sentence long. It said, "Notice of Appeals Board Decision 12-AB-8888 is attached." I was so worried for Mary my heart skipped a beat as I clicked on the PDF file.

Things had gotten pretty rough for Mary; the walls were really starting to come down in Mary's world. She was literally a week away from her water, phone and other utilities being cut off. She'd been given as many payment extensions as she was going to get. After that it was only a matter of time before she was on her sister's couch or in a shelter, or maybe jumping off a bridge. An eternal optimist, Mary told me that the people managing her outstanding accounts were good folks and had given her numerous extensions for payment. But she reported that if she couldn't pay within the week, most her services would be discontinued. The rest would be cut off shortly thereafter. Mary didn't complain about her account holders; to her they had done nothing wrong, to the contrary they'd helped her out in a difficult time with numerous payment extensions. She didn't expect the gas company to give her gas indefinitely without payment. But she was getting scared. The last thing she said to me before the EAB decision was, "I don't know what I'm going to do."

I had high hopes the EAB would do the right thing but I had been stupefied that the administrative law judge had been so off base when he decided the issue of Mary's unemployment benefits wrongly, especially when so much was stake. The PDF file started to opened up on my screen and I saw:

"APPEALS BOARD DECISION. Reversed. No Disqualification."

The Appeals Board had adopted most of my arguments completely. I couldn't wait to call Mary with the news. It would mean she'd be able to keep her bills paid and keep the lights on, put gas in her pick-up, continue her job search, and possibly stay in her house. Either way, it meant the difference between surviving and spiraling into a financial free fall that she might never pull up from.

I didn't earn any income that day. I did the EAB appeal pro bono, but I have not felt better about the outcome of any case I've worked on in the time I've been practicing law. It's funny, but sad, that Mary wanted to pay me out of her retroactive unemployment benefits. Fair is fair! Mary believes. But that was not going to happen. And it didn't. To share an overused cliche, this is why I went to law school.

How To Buy a Safe Car

Angel Law PC — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:30:00 GMT

Research the Safety Test Results of the Car You're Considering Buying

Choosing a new car for your family should certainly include some research into the safety of the vehicle, and its ability to protect the passengers in the event of an accident. Here are some important places to check out before making the final decision on a new car purchase.

Where Can I Find Safe Car Reports?

Every year approximately 42,000 lives are lost to car accidents on the nation’s highways; this includes vehicle accidents involving SUV’s, pickups, motorcycles and vans as well as more typical passenger cars or sedans. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), of those fatal crashes, sixty-one percent involve only one vehicle, meaning the driver of a vehicle loses control and crashes without colliding with another vehicle. Oregon alone had 377 reported traffic fatalities in 2009 due to car accidents. With these kinds of car accident numbers, it’s more and more important that the vehicles we purchase have the safety features to protect us in the event that we’re involved in an accident. But which vehicle, make, model, and manufacturer offers the best in safety features and proven safety quality?

Selecting the safest vehicle for yourself and your family can pose a difficult task because there are so many sources of information regarding vehicle safety, and sometimes the information seems conflicting. In part one of this article we survey of a couple of sources of vehicle safety information from internet sites that are informative as well as reliable. In part two of this article we will go over some of the specific safety features that you should be aware of when it comes to selecting a new automobile, truck or SUV.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

One of the first sites to consult for vehicle safety information is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA. The government for their part has been testing new vehicles since the late 1970’s to ensure that certain safety standards are being met when it comes to motorized transportation. Based on these tests the government rates a vehicle on a 5-star system for frontal impact, side impact, and rollover crash safety. And beginning this year, 2011, the NHTSA has begun to recognize vehicles equipped with Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies. There are three Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies that the NHTSA now recommends: Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Forward Collision Warning (FCW), and Lane Departure Warning (LDW).

In part two of this article we will explain these features in more detail. However, a wealth of consumer information can be found in the NHTSA’s sister site Safercar.gov. There you can find numerous articles that cover various safety topics on such things as airbags, child safety, safety technology, and proper tire pressure. Don’t forget to take a look at Safercar.gov’s resources site. Resource links at Safecar.gov offer information for consumers considering purchasing a new vehicle who have safety in mind. Lastly, Safercar.gov also provides a query database where you can search vehicles by make, model, year, and manufacturer and compare safety ratings as well as safety features.

While it is impossible to determine how well vehicles will protect drivers and passengers in all types of crashes, NHTSA assures consumers that its 5-star rating system is useful for comparing vehicle safety. For example, NHTSA reports that when it comes to vehicle weight, heavier vehicles will better protect you in a crash than lighter vehicles. Also as a general practice, NHTSA recommends that new buyers sit in their potential vehicle and see that their seat belts are properly fitted. Proper fit means that the lap belt will rest on the upper thighs and the shoulder belt across the chest. NHTSA recommends that consumers look at vehicles that offer both electronic stability control (ESC) and side airbag (SAB) head and thorax protection technology. In the 2010 Buying a Safer Car brochure provided by Safercar.gov, NHTSA also recommends that you ask these questions before making a vehicle selection:

What features does this vehicle have that will help you avoid a crash?
How well does this vehicle protect you during a crash? Does this vehicle have side airbag (SAB) head and thorax protection technology?
What is the likelihood of this vehicle rolling over in a single-vehicle crash?
What other types of advanced safety features does this vehicle have?
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

A second reliable site for information regarding vehicle safety is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety or IIHS. IIHS is a non-profit, scientific, and educational organization that is wholly supported by auto insurers. IIHS aims to reduce deaths, injuries, and property damage that result form crashes on the nation’s roads by collecting and publishing insurance data regarding the human and economic losses resulting from automobile crashes. The IIHS is bolstered by its affiliate, The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI). HLDI collects and publishes insurance loss coverages in six areas: collision, property damage liability, personal injury protection, medical payment, bodily injury liability, and comprehensive (including theft). Statistics compiled by the HLDI on the differences in collision losses for different makes and models of vehicles are available to you from your vehicle dealer upon request.

At the IIHS site you can immediately find a Top Safety Pick for 2011 listing. IIHS’s testing is rigorous and independent of the NHTSA 5-star rating system. In addition to impact studies upon crash dummies from frontal, side, and rollover crashes, IIHS also records the amount of intrusion into the passenger compartment and evaluates the seat/head restraints for protection against neck injuries in rear impact crashes. Information and video demonstrations regarding how testing is conducted and under what conditions, can be found on the IIHS website. But the highlight of the IIHS’s website are its query databases of vehicles which have (SAB) and (ESC) systems. At the very least, check out IIHS’s Status Report newsletter for a quick informative read.

From the author: Patrick Angel is an Attorney at Angel Law PC specializing in Car Accident Cases in Oregon

Jury Finds For Blueberry Nursery Against Fertilzer Manufactuer

Angel Law PC — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:16:00 GMT

Forty Million Dollar Jury Verdict

In February of 2012, a Multnomah County jury awarded two plant nursery owners in a products liability suit nearly $40 million to compensate them for the loss of millions of plants killed by what the jury concluded was a defective fertilizer.

Jagjit Aujla and his wife owned and operated J.R.T. Nurseries, which specialized in blueberry plants as well as some ornamental plants including azaleas and rhododendron. The business was thriving for more than 15 years, with an emphasis on selling blueberry plants to regional growers for resale to food chains, when a salesman for the nursery's supplier recommended a new fertilizer called "Multicote 15-9-12."

Aujla had been using Osmocote Plus 15-9-12 manufactured by Scotts, but the salesman for Multicote convinced him that his new fertilizer was the same as Osmocote Plus 15-9-12, and was less expensive.

Multicote Fertilizer

Aujla applied defendant's Multicote to a portion of the JRT Nurseries' blueberry crop the first year, using Osmocote on the rest. The blueberry plants treated with the Multicote product died or were damaged, while the plants treated with Osmocote survived. Aujla didn't suspect the dead or damaged blueberry plants were the result of Multicote fertilizer because he was grieving over the sudden death of family member. He assumed the problems were the result of his inattention at managing the nursery.

The next year, at the salesman's suggestion, Aujla applied Multicote to all of JRT's Canadian blueberry crop, and to a portion of the U.S. crop. He also applied Multicote to many of his ornamental plants. Again, the plants treated with the Multicote product died or failed to thrive, while those treated with Scotts brand Osmocote did well. JRT Nurseries lost more than 4 million blueberry plants as a result of the defective fertilizer, incurring large debts and lost profits. They also lost the goodwill of many valuable customers, who turned to other suppliers. JRT Nurseries itself struggled to survive as a business as a result of the large scale destruction of its plant inventory and the loss of many customers.

DeZwaan Nurseries, Ltd., another Canadian nursery, also purchased Multicote fertilzer around the same time for use on its crop of Japanese maple trees. DeZwaan experienced a similar result as JRT. DeZwann's trees treated with Multicote died or failed to thrive, while those treated with a different fertilizer thrived. DeZwaan lost about 3,500 trees resulting in significant business losses.

JRT and DeZwaan sued the companies that designed and sold Multicote, Sun Gro Horticulture Distribution, Inc., the Woodburn Fertilizer Company, and the fertilizer's manufacturer, Wilbur-Ellis Co. The plaintiffs alleged that the fertilizer was defective and unreasonably dangerous because its untested formula of ingredients was toxic to nursery plants. Plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturers were negligent in using ingredients to make the fertilizer, which they knew or should have known were not recommended for use with horticulture crops and for failing to test those ingredients to ensure safe use of the product. The plaintiffs asserted in their lawsuit that the defendants negligently mixed an untested blend of ingredients in an attempt to gain market share from their main competitor, Scotts, which sold the Osmocote line of fertilizers.

Plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants falsely represented that the fertilizer was a controlled-release product and that it was as good as Osmocote. Evidence at trial persuaded the jury that Multicote was not controlled-released.

JRT sought compensation claiming past economic losses of about $19 million and future estimated losses of about $20 million. DeZwaan claimed $251,000 in economic losses.

Dangerously Defective Product

The defendants denied that Multicote was defective and argued, among other things, that the farmers should have tested Multicote before applying it to such a large number of plants. Defendants also claimed that Aujla was negligent because he reapplied the product for a second year after he knew plants had been damaged the year prior.

The Multnomah County jury found after 22 days of trial that Multicote 15-9-12 was a defective product. The jury further found Multicote was unreasonably dangerous, the defendants were negligent and had breached express warranties, and the fertilizer damaged the plaintiffs' crops. As to the JRT nurseries, the jury allocated fault at 77% to defendant Sun Gro, 13% to Wilbur Ellis, and 10% of the fault to the plaintiff, JRT. As to DeZwaan, the jury allocated fault at 85% to Sun Gro and 15% to Wilbur-Ellis.

The jury awarded approximately $39.57 million to JRT Nurseries, including $12 million for direct economic losses, and $22.5 million for JRT's loss of customers, as well as nearly $5 million interest. DeZwaan recovered $241,060 for their direct economic losses.

Plaintiffs were represented by Lawrence Baron of Portland, Oregon, Robert Udziela of Portland Oregon, and Joseph Prodor of British Columbia, Canada. Defendants were represented by Everett Jack and Bill Earle of Portland Oregon.

Ladder Safety 101 - by Consumer Product Safety Commission

Angel Law PC — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:39:00 GMT

Ladder Safety 101

By CPSC Blogger on December 3, 2011

Blog en español

See the ladder. See the man falling off the ladder.

This is NOT the way to start the holidays. (Obvious? Yes.) Yet, every year, hundreds of people fall from ladders while hanging decorations.

In November and December 2010, more than 13,000 people were treated in emergency rooms nationwide from injuries related to holiday decorations. That’s the largest number of injuries in 8 years.

So, while you might think that you already know how to use a ladder safely, now’s a good time to review ladder do’s and don’ts.

Always select the correct ladder for the job. That’s one that extends at least 3 feet over the roofline or working surface.
Always place your ladder on level and firm ground. Use leg levelers under the ladder to level uneven or soft ground. Leg levelers are devices that you can buy at a hardware or home improvement store.
Make sure the ladder can support both your weight and the load you are putting on it by checking the ladder’s maximum load rating.
Make sure your straight and adjustable ladders have both slip-resistant feet.
Set up straight, single or extension ladders at about a 75–degree angle. To test if you have the correct angle, stand up straight with your toes touching the feet of the ladder as it leans away from you. Extend your arms in front of you. Your palms should touch the top of the rung that’s at shoulder level.
Don’t use a metal ladder near power lines or electrical equipment. Stick with wood or fiberglass ladders in these situations and use extra caution. And no ladder should ever touch a live electric wire.
Check all rung locks and spreader braces on your ladder to make sure they are set.
Have a helper hold the bottom of the ladder.
Keep ladders away from a door that can be opened.
Only allow one person on a ladder at a time.
Center your body between the rails of the ladder at all times. Leaning too far to one side while working is a no-no and can cause you to fall. If you were to have a belt on, the buckle should never be outside of the right or left rail of the ladder.
Do not stand on the top three rungs of a straight, single or extension ladder.
Stay off of the ladder’s top step and bucket shelf. Labels on ladders warn you not to stand on them as well. Don’t try to climb or stand on the rear section of a stepladder.
Only use a ladder for its intended purpose. And follow the ladder’s instruction labels.
When you’re done with the ladder, put it away immediately. Never leave a raised ladder unattended.

How Dangerous Are Motorcycles Really?

Angel Law PC — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 07:25:00 GMT

Infographic authored by personal injury law firm, Sutliff & Stout. To view the original post, check out the original Motorcycle Accident infographic.

Car vs Deer Accidents Increase in the Fall

Angel Law PC — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:07:00 GMT

November is the most dangerous month for car accidents involving deer.

Portland Injury Litigation Law Firm Angel Law PC first posted this safety reminder last November. With November upon us again it's a good idea to revisit this seasonal driving concern.

More collisions between cars and deer occur, according to insurance company studies, during the month of November than any other month throughout the year. In North America, mating season for deer spans a period from late October through early December, and November marks the peak for increased activity and movement for the animals. This time of year deer are less timid and more likely to find themselves in the middle of a roadway.

Compared to other regions in the county, however, Oregon doesn't rank as high as some among states for risk of deer collisions. West Virginia, Iowa, South Dakota, Michigan and Pennsylvania are among the states with the highest incidents of deer and vehicle collisions.

Car accidents involving collisions with deer can be deadly. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that on average 200 Americans are killed each year in car accidents with deer. Another 10,000 are injured resulting in an estimated $1 billion in property damage to vehicles.

In Indiana last year, a few days before Halloween (2011), seven of the ten occupants of a minivan, members of an extended family, were killed when their vehicle struck a deer and was then hit by a semi truck traveling an estimated 65 mph. The minivan slowed or stopped after hitting a deer and the semi-trailer/ big rig struck them catastrophically from behind. The tragedy took the lives of 3 adults and 4 children, one of them a six-week-old infant. Three other occupants survived. Deer in roadways pose a serious risk for drivers, especially at night.

Often serious injuries from car accidents involving deer collisions are caused when the struck deer travels up the hood of a car through the windshield and into the passenger compartment. Some analysts argue that when the impact with a deer is inevitable motorists should resist the urge to slam on the brakes because this can cause the front end of the vehicle to dip dramatically and may increase the chances that the animal will end up through the windshield. Not braking, on the other hand, may instead result in the animal being pushed under the vehicle.

As always, the best preventative policy is to remain alert while driving, keeping your eyes on the road, scanning the road ahead, and keeping a constant lookout. States are generally very good about posting waring signs where deer activity is a risk. Make sure you register the risk when you see a deer crossing sign while driving.

10 Ways the US Chamber of Commerce Hurts Americans

Angel Law PC — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:32:00 GMT

This is an embedded Microsoft Office presentation, powered by Office Web Apps.

Richard Baldwin for Oregon Supreme Court

Angel Law PC — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:07:00 GMT

Dear Friends of Angel Law PC,

I am writing to urge you to vote for Judge Richard Baldwin for the Oregon Supreme Court in this November election.

The Oregon Supreme Court is the final interpreter of all state laws and regulations, and the Oregon Constitution: its decisions typically affect Oregonians far more frequently than the decisions of federal courts. Thus, it is critical that we have highly qualified members on the Oregon Supreme Court.

Circuit Court Judge Richard Baldwin is by far the most qualified candidate, with the most relevant judicial experience, and of the highest integrity. Growing up under modest circumstances, after working his way through college and law school, Judge Baldwin has committed his life to serving others. While in private practice he represented working families in a wide range of civil and criminal matters. He was Director of Legal Aid in Portland, providing legal services to Oregonians who could not afford to hire a private attorney. His civil rights work and other community service has earned him awards by the Oregon Women Lawyers association, and other groups.

In 2001, Governor Kitzhaber appointed him to be a Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge and he has served with real distinction in that position since then, including presiding over several hundreds of civil and criminal trials. As a result of his keen judicial intellect and abilities, Judge Baldwin was selected by his peers to be one of five judges on the Complex Litigation Panel to preside over the most difficult civil and criminal cases.

In the Supreme Court election, he has been endorsed by over 60 judges throughout Oregon, including all of the 12 Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges endorsing in this race, as well as by 68% of Oregon lawyers in an Oregon Bar poll. Further, he was honored to receive the support of Governors Barbara Roberts and Ted Kulongoski, as well as, Former Attorney General Hardy Myers.

Experience and integrity are important on the Supreme Court.

Many of us decline to vote for an elected position for which we know little or nothing about the candidates. That can easily result in an election of the less qualified candidate. Please don't let that happen in this contest for the Supreme Court position 3.

Please vote for Judge Baldwin. Ask others to vote as well. For more information go to: www.electejudgebaldwin.com

Sincerely,

PATRICK ANGEL

Commercial Trucking Accidents - Choosing a Lawyer

Guest blogger Ana Larson — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:05:00 GMT

Angel Law PC is pleased to share the following guest blog post by Ana Larson on behalf of Houston attorney Greg Baumgartner

How to Choose an Experienced Trucking Accident Lawyer

Trucking accidents happen on highways, interstates and roadways all across the Untied States from the East coast to the West. One major reason for such commercial trucking accidents is often that the driver was fatigued while driving. Additionally, big rig operators have to deliver the loads on their truck to the destinations on a tight schedule. Such pressure can add to the mental tension for truck drivers. As a result of stress and fatigue, serious accidents too often do take place. In many such accidents, the semi truck collides with another car with serious consequences. When a trucking accident occurs due to the negligence of a big rig truck driver the injured motorist has to decide what the best steps are to move forward.

After a Trucking Accident Contacting an Experienced Lawyer is Your Best Bet

If you or your loved one is involved in a commercial trucking accident, you should immediately hire a commercial trucking accident lawyer. An experienced truck accident attorney can explain the legal complications in detail related to such case. Knowing the legal process and the way a trucking case will be investigated will help you make the best legal decisions and assist you in getting compensation that you deserve. Often, time is of the essence because factual information about the accident's causes needs to be investigated quickly or some critical evidence may be lost. But how do you find the best lawyer for you? A bit of planning and market research will help you decide how to choose the best trucking accident lawyer for you.

How to Select a Skilled Attorney?

You should be quite careful when you think about retaining a trucking accident lawyer. Consider these factors when you are looking for a qualified trucking accident attorney.

Specialized Field – Nowadays, there are many auto accident lawyers to choose from in virtually any city in the United States. You should look for a lawyer or law firm that specializes in handling truck accident cases. For instance, one reputable law firm in Houston Texas has a lot of experience with 18-Wheeler accidents. This law practice has attorneys skilled in this area of investigating and litigating Semi Truck accidents.

Work Experience – Work experience does matter if you wish to have peace of mind that your attorney will resolve your big rig collision case in your favor. You should look for an attorney with a good number of years practicing and for someone with good client reviews. Trucking accident cases require a skilled litigator who understands the governmental rules which cover interstate truck drivers and the commercial trucking industry.

Fees Structure – Hiring a reputable skilled lawyer is a good first step for winning a truck accident lawsuit. However, the fee structure of the lawyer does matter. Most victims who have been hurt in a trucking accident need a lawyer who will take the case on a contingency fee arrangement rather than charge an initial retainer and an hourly fee. A contingency fee payment arrangement means you only have to pay your lawyer at the end of the case and only after you have received compensation from the accident.

Consider the above tips when deciding how to select an attorney after a truck accident that you or a family member are involved in. These factors may help you to choose the best 18-Wheeler accident attorney to guide you through the litigation process and get you the compensation for your losses that you are entitled to.

Oregon's State Wide Races: Election Day

Angel Law PC — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:16:00 GMT

With Election Day 2012 drawing near, Angel Law PC would like to encourage all Oregonians to mail in or drop off your ballots by the voting deadline and participate in the democratic process. Portland attorney Paul Bovarnick has generously shared the following information on a number of important races about which every Oregonian should be informed. There are four important statewide races. All registered Oregonians, from all counties should cast a vote in the following races, as well as your national and local races and measures.

For Statewide races, Angel Law PC endorses:

Kate Brown for Secretary of State
Brad Avakian for BOLI Commissioner
Circuit Court Judge Richard Baldwin for the Oregon Supreme Court
Jim Egan for the Oregon Court of Appeals

Kate Brown is the incumbent Secretary of State, and she is running for reelection. Before she was elected as Secretary of State, she was the leader of the Democrats in the Oregon Senate and served as the first female Senate Majority Leader. The Secretary of State runs the Audit Division, the Corporations Division and the Elections Division. During her tenure, the Audit Division has identified millions of dollars in savings for the State, and has also identified and preserved many programs that work well for Oregon. As head of the Elections Division she has protected Oregon's unique vote by mail process. In Oregon, we have one of the highest voter participation rates in the nation, and our system is uniquely free of fraud. Her opponent has no significant government experience, and likely poses a threat to Oregon's very successful mail in voting system.

Brad Avakian is running for reelection as the Labor Commissioner (BOLI). Brad was a member of the Oregon Trial Lawyer's Association before he was Labor Commissioner at BOLI. The primary mission of the Labor Commissioner is to enforce Oregon's employment laws. Avakian has strengthened enforcement of Oregon's Labor laws, ensuring that workers receive the employment rights they are entitled to, and he has strengthened Oregon's apprenticeship programs. He is fully committed to protecting Oregon jobs and Oregon workers. Avakian's opponent for the position of BOLI Commissioner opposes Organized Labor, and has shown that he intends to weaken the enforcement of Oregon's laws that protect workers. This contest for the office of BOLI Commissioner is close, so it is very important to get the facts about these candidates. Angel Law encourages Oregonians to vote for Brad Avakian.

Richard Baldwin is running for the Supreme Court of Oregon. Judge Baldwin has been a trial judge, Director of Litigation for Legal Aid, and a plaintiff's lawyer during his legal career. I have appeared in front of Judge Baldwin in Multnomah County. He believes strongly in the rule of law, and he believes that our system of justice should be open to everyone, and should protect everyone, not just the rich and powerful. He is experienced, fair and very smart. His opponent Nena Cook has spent much of her professional life defending corporations and businesses in employment cases. Judge Baldwin is the clear choice for the Supreme Court of Oregon, his opponent, while a capable attorney, does not have the desireable level of experience judging cases from the bench required of a candidate to the fill a seat on Oregon's Supreme Court.

Finally, Jim Egan is running for a seat on Oregon's Court of Appeals. As a private lawyer Jim has represented workers in employment disputes and has fought to defend the rights of employees in the workplace. Like me, Jim has served in the US Marine Corps and is currently a Captain in the Marine Reserves, having served bravely in Iraq in 2008. Jim Egan has been a trial judge in the CIrcuit Court for Linn County, and like Judge Baldwin, he is fully committed to the principles of fairness and justice for all, regardless of the wealth and power of any individual or business.

Thank you for taking a moment to read this. If you have any questions about Kate Brown, Brad Avakian, Judge Richard Baldwin or Judge James Egan, or any other Oregon candidates, I would be happy to talk to you.

Supreme Court Limits a State's Power to Judge Foreign Companies

Angel Law PC — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 04:16:00 GMT

Supreme Court Limits State's Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendants

This is a short article that I recently wrote for the Oregon State Bar'sProduct Liability Newsletter. This is a summary of a Supreme Court case, the Nicastro case, from 2011, which reviewed the issue of whether or not a state had the power over a foreign company.

Last summer the Supreme Court issued its decision in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro which shifted the direction of the law in the United States regarding a state's jurisdiction over non-resident or foreign companies. In short, the Nicastro decision seems to swing the pendulum back, in favor of defendant product manufacturers over consumers injured by product defects.

Robert Nicastro severely injured his hand at work on a machine manufactured by J. McIntrye Machinery, a British company. Nicastro subsequently filed a lawsuit in the state of New Jersey alleging the product was unreasonably dangerous as designed. J. McIntrye argued in return that the state court of New Jersey lacked jurisdiction over it because it was a foreign company and it had no facilities in New Jersey, paid no New Jersey taxes, did not advertise in New Jersey and had no employees in the state. The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that New Jersey courts did have the power to adjudicate J. McIntrye's legal obligations and liabilities since the minimum contacts test in Asahi[1] had been satisfied. New Jersey's highest court concluded that since J. McIntrye had hired a U.S. distributor that had sold the product to a New Jersey company, J. McIntrye knew or should have known that it's products were being distributed nationwide and might reach any of the fifty states.

The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the decision of New Jersey's highest court and reversed that ruling, holding 6 to 3 that J. McIntyre had not "purposely availed" itself of doing business in New Jersey because they had not intentionally placed products specifically into New Jersey's stream of commerce with the expectation that they would be purchased by consumers within the jurisdiction. Justice Kennedy who wrote the plurality opinion argued that J. McIntrye had not purposely availed itself of the privileges of doing business in New Jersey because there was no evidence that it had advertised in New Jersey, shipped goods there or otherwise targeted the state. Justice Kennedy concluded that defendant had not "manifested an intent" to submit to the power of a sovereign, writing, "it is not enough that the defendant might have predicted that its goods will reach the forum State."[2]

The Due Process Clause requires that before a state may exercise personal jurisdiction, a nonresident or foreign defendant must have sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum state. Historically, the minimum contacts requirement ensured that a state did not overreach its authority "as [a] co-equal sovereign in a federal system."[3] However, with the expansion of commerce and markets by the end of the twentieth century, considerations of sovereignty seemed to give way to a "reasonable and fairness" analysis which seemed to favor resident claimants when determining questions of a state's personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants.

In 1987 the Supreme Court considered in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court[4] whether placing a product into the stream of commerce was sufficient in and of itself to satisfy the minimum contacts requirement triggering a state's personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. In Asahi, the Court expanded the state's jurisdictional authority in a unanimous decision, but generated two concurring and but competing opinions. Justice O'Connor writing for four justices and advancing a "stream of commerce plus" theory, would have held that a manufacturer had to do something more than merely placing a product into the stream of commerce to trigger minimum contacts with a forum state. Justice Brennan wrote a concurring opinion for four other Justices which would have held that placing a product into the stream of commerce was enough by itself as long as the manufacturer was aware that the product may be purchased in the forum state.

In Nicastro, the injury occurred in New Jersey to a New Jersey resident. J. McIntyre had hired a U.S. distributor to sell its machinery in the United States, McIntyre's distributor sold and shipped a machine to a New Jersey company, Nicastro's employer, and McIntyre wanted its U.S. distributor to sell machines to anyone in America who wanted to purchase them. Yet the plurality concluded that McIntyre had done nothing significant to specifically target the state of New Jersey and avail itself of its laws and protections. Thus, placing a product in the stream of commerce was not enough without evidence of defendant's intent to purposefully directed it's conduct at the State of New Jersey.

As a practical consideration the Nicastro decision illustrates a shift that may persuade a plaintiff in future products liability cases against foreign defendants to consider the United States as a better forum if there is any question regarding the defendant's purposefully availing itself of a specific state's laws, protection or markets.

[1] Asahi Metal Industry Co., v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987).

[2] J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd., v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) at 2787.

[3] Asahi, 480 U.S. 102 (1987).

[4] Id.

7 Patient Tips to Prevent Medical Malpractice

Angel Law PC — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:56:00 GMT

Don't be a Victim of Medical Malpractice. Be an Informed Patient With These 7 Patient Safety Tips

TIP #1 - Be Proactive: Medical Malpractice accounts for more unnecessary deaths in the United States each year than breast cancer, AIDS, and auto accidents combined, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services. Many reliable estimates indicate the number is greater than 100,000 annually. That's a staggering number of preventable deaths from medical malpractice. Becoming a more informed and proactive patient, one who knows how to communicate with care providers, can improve your chances of getting quality care and avoiding medical mistakes related to your health care.

Doctors and all health care professionals want to provide good medical care, and most succeed. But in the environment of our complex healthcare system too many opportunities for mistakes have evolved related to uncoordinated patient care, inadequate medical record keeping, and cost cutting at medical facilities and clinics. To compound the problem, the American Medical Association and other physicians' groups have largely refused to acknowledge the very real need for systemic corrective measures to lower the incidence of medical mistakes.

TIP #2 - Stay Healthy: The single most important step you can take to avoid being a victim of medical negligence is to adopt a healthy lifestyle. If you don't need medical treatment, it's more difficult to be the victim of medical negligence. Get your weight under control if necessary, don't use tobacco products, if you drink alcohol, drink in moderation, and make some kind of exercise part of your life. Find out more about steps to improve your health at the Department of Health and Human Services.

TIP #3 - Ask Questions: Take responsibility for your health. You can simply no longer afford to be a passive patient assuming you'll always get appropriate medical care or that you doctor will always make the best decisions. The dramatic increase in medical mistakes makes that clear. Ask your doctor questions. Most patients don't have a medical background and might argue that it's difficult to know what to ask. But every patient should be able to ask their doctor, "how confident are you about the diagnosis?" That means, are you sure I have the condition you think I have? When appropriate, ask your care provider, "what else could it be? Are there reasonable steps to take to rule out something more serious."

TIP #4 - Get a Second Opinion: If you're not comfortable with the treatment plan your doctor is proposing or don't feel your physician has considered information you think is important, trust your instincts and get a second opinion. A good doctor will not think twice about your desire to have someone else take a look at your medical situation. There won't be any hard feelings, and if there are you should find a better doctor more secure in his or her competence.

TIP #5 - Follow UP: Follow up with your medical care providers. A common example of medical negligence is when a care provider fails to follow up with a patient. Sometimes a doctor may suspect the existence of a serious condition but need more time to see how the patient's symptoms progress. The treatment plan is often "observation." The doctor decides to observe the patient and follow up after a period of time. Too often physicians or their clinical staff fail to calendar follow up appointments or contact patients who need to come back in for tests after a period of observation. Additionally, don't assume your lab results were normal just because you don't hear from your doctor's office. Often times a medical professional will tell a patient after blood tests or other lab tests, "we'll contact you if there are any abnormal results or problems." Don't count on it. Call into your doctor and ask to know about the specific results of blood work or lab tests.

TIP #6 - Review Your Medical Records: Create your own record of your medical history. Order, review for accuracy, and maintain your medical records from each of your medical providers. Sadly, you may not be able to rely on the physicians who treat you to keep up to date and complete medical records. This may be hard to believe for some people, but a large percentage of medical negligence cases involve incomplete or inaccurate medical records. This is an area of high controversy. Patient safety advocates have been urging the American Medical Association for many years to improve the system of medical records and their access to treatment providers, and to standardize a system which ensures every medical professional who treats a patient has access to up to date accurate health information for every medical professional who has had contact with the patient.

TIP #7 - Reject "Tort Reform": Lastly, to improve the health care system in this country patients must do a better job of holding negligent doctors accountable. Numerous studies show that a very large percentage of patients who have been harmed by medical errors do nothing about it. Many patients don't believe they have any recourse and don't believe they could ever find an attorney to help them. Speak out against the small number of negligent doctors out there. Speaking out and holding bad doctors accountable serves to strengthen the reputation of the overwhelming number of good doctors. Demand public access to physicians records of discipline, and do not give your support for so-called "tort reform" measures that erode patient safety and allow negligent physicians to insulate themselves from accountability.

To get more information about a potential medical malpractice question you may have, contact the Oregon Medical Malpractice Law Firm of Angel Law PC.