bicyclelaw

[bicyclelaw]

Event data recorders are devices installed in motor vehicles to record technical and occupant information for a brief period before, during, and after a triggering event, such as a car accident. Sometimes referred to as 'black box' data, the data recorded can be valuable when analyzing and reconstructing an accident. #caraccident #blackbox

[bicyclelaw]

#injured #semitruck #semicrash #semiaccident

[bicyclelaw]

Injured in a car accident without health insurance? You have options for medical treatment. 

[bicyclelaw]

#caraccidents #socialhostliability #drunkdriving #coloradopersonalinjury #coloradoaccidentattorney

[bicyclelaw]

Negligent Parties are Responsible for Pre-Existing Conditions

Do pre-existing conditions have an impact on personal injury claims? Yes. The existence of a pre-existing injury can have a serious effect on a personal injury claim. As the name would suggest, a pre-existing injury is one that existed before the collision or injury in question. In Colorado, the Thin Skull Doctrine explains how a pre-existing condition is treated in a personal injury case. What is the Thin Skull Doctrine? According to the Thin Skull Doctrine, negligent parties are liable for damages resulting from a wrongful act even if the victim had a pre-existing condition that made the consequences more severe than it would have been for a person without the condition. Put differently, a negligent party may not escape or reduce liability because the victim’s pre-existing condition made her more susceptible of injury. Historically, the Thin Skull Doctrine has not been limited to just pre-existing bodily conditions. It has been appropriately applied when a victim may be predisposed or more susceptible to ill effects than a normal person. What is the Aggravation Doctrine? A negligent party cannot, however, be held liable for damages he did not actually cause. The Aggravation Doctrine provides that, notwithstanding the Thin Skull Doctrine, a defendant is liable only to the extent which his conduct resulted in an aggravation of the pre-existing condition, and not for the condition as it was. The Aggravation Doctrine makes a tortfeasor liable for damages to the extent the conduct increased the severity of a pre-existing condition in the injured party. The Thin Skull Doctrine and the Aggravation Doctrine may appear to conflict as to the amount of damages properly awardable where an injured party has a pre-existing condition. The Thin Skull Doctrine suggests all damages are awardable despite the condition, whereas the Aggravation Doctrine indicates only the damages resulting form aggravation of the condition are awardable. Nonetheless, Colorado Courts have determined the two doctrines are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Rather, Courts have allowed instructions on both doctrines depending on the evidence. Demonstrating New Injuries Every person is a physical and mental product of their life experiences. It is very rare for someone injured at the hands of another was without any prior injuries or health conditions. The Thin Skull Doctrine essentially means a negligent party does not get off the hook for his negligent conduct merely by claiming the victim had already suffered an injury to the affected body part. Rather, the at-fault party is still responsible to compensate the victim fairly for the proximate consequence of his tortious conduct. As an at-fault party is only liable for injuries he caused, it is vital for an injury victim with a pre-existing condition to demonstrate the subsequent accident caused an additional injury and/or made the pre-existing condition worse. Importantly, the Thin Skull Doctrine is not a mechanism to shift the burden of proof to the defendant. To the contrary, the injured party is still legally responsible to prove his case, including the nature and degree of damages that resulted from the negligent conduct as well as the causal connection between those damages and the negligent conduct of the tortfeasor. Contact our Denver Personal Injury Lawyers For practical purposes, the Denver personal injury lawyers at Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, strongly suggest proper education and experience for all drivers. Parents should take time to educate and allow for pragmatic experience before allowing their teenage children to borrow a household vehicle. If you have been involved in an accident, contact the Colorado personal injury law firm of Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, at 720.863.6904 or email us for your free consultation. Our lawyers handle a wide range of personal injury cases, including Motor Vehicle Accidents, Bicycle Accidents, Pedestrian Accidents, Slip & Fall Accidents, and Dog Bites & Attacks. We service Arvada, Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Commerce City, Lakewood, Littleton, Thornton, Westminster, Wheat Ridge, and other parts of metropolitan Denver, Colorado. Read the full article

[bicyclelaw]

Colorado Personal Injury Law Firm Recognized for Pro Bono Efforts

Too often, people in need of legal representation cannot afford to pay for it. The Colorado personal injury law firm of Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, believes pro bono legal work and community service are important in our community. This is why we have made pro bono legal work and community service an integral part of our firm culture. Our lawyers annually commit to achieving more than 50 hours annually of pro bono work and community service. We believe it is our professional and moral obligation to help those with limited means. For the fifth straight year, our Colorado personal injury law firm has been recognized for committing to over 50 hours of pro bono legal services. Read the full article

[bicyclelaw]

Negligent Parties are Responsible for Pre-Existing Conditions

Do pre-existing conditions have an impact on personal injury claims? Yes. The existence of a pre-existing injury can have a serious effect on a personal injury claim. As the name would suggest, a pre-existing injury is one that existed before the collision or injury in question. In Colorado, the Thin Skull Doctrine explains how a pre-existing condition is treated in a personal injury case. What is the Thin Skull Doctrine? According to the Thin Skull Doctrine, negligent parties are liable for damages resulting from a wrongful act even if the victim had a pre-existing condition that made the consequences more severe than it would have been for a person without the condition. Put differently, a negligent party may not escape or reduce liability because the victim’s pre-existing condition made her more susceptible of injury. Historically, the Thin Skull Doctrine has not been limited to just pre-existing bodily conditions. It has been appropriately applied when a victim may be predisposed or more susceptible to ill effects than a normal person. What is the Aggravation Doctrine? A negligent party cannot, however, be held liable for damages he did not actually cause. The Aggravation Doctrine provides that, notwithstanding the Thin Skull Doctrine, a defendant is liable only to the extent which his conduct resulted in an aggravation of the pre-existing condition, and not for the condition as it was. The Aggravation Doctrine makes a tortfeasor liable for damages to the extent the conduct increased the severity of a pre-existing condition in the injured party. The Thin Skull Doctrine and the Aggravation Doctrine may appear to conflict as to the amount of damages properly awardable where an injured party has a pre-existing condition. The Thin Skull Doctrine suggests all damages are awardable despite the condition, whereas the Aggravation Doctrine indicates only the damages resulting form aggravation of the condition are awardable. Nonetheless, Colorado Courts have determined the two doctrines are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Rather, Courts have allowed instructions on both doctrines depending on the evidence. Demonstrating New Injuries Every person is a physical and mental product of their life experiences. It is very rare for someone injured at the hands of another was without any prior injuries or health conditions. The Thin Skull Doctrine essentially means a negligent party does not get off the hook for his negligent conduct merely by claiming the victim had already suffered an injury to the affected body part. Rather, the at-fault party is still responsible to compensate the victim fairly for the proximate consequence of his tortious conduct. As an at-fault party is only liable for injuries he caused, it is vital for an injury victim with a pre-existing condition to demonstrate the subsequent accident caused an additional injury and/or made the pre-existing condition worse. Importantly, the Thin Skull Doctrine is not a mechanism to shift the burden of proof to the defendant. To the contrary, the injured party is still legally responsible to prove his case, including the nature and degree of damages that resulted from the negligent conduct as well as the causal connection between those damages and the negligent conduct of the tortfeasor. Contact our Denver Personal Injury Lawyers For practical purposes, the Denver personal injury lawyers at Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, strongly suggest proper education and experience for all drivers. Parents should take time to educate and allow for pragmatic experience before allowing their teenage children to borrow a household vehicle. If you have been involved in an accident, contact the Colorado personal injury law firm of Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, at 720.863.6904 or email us for your free consultation. Our lawyers handle a wide range of personal injury cases, including Motor Vehicle Accidents, Bicycle Accidents, Pedestrian Accidents, Slip & Fall Accidents, and Dog Bites & Attacks. We service Arvada, Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Commerce City, Lakewood, Littleton, Thornton, Westminster, Wheat Ridge, and other parts of metropolitan Denver, Colorado. Read the full article

[bicyclelaw]

Denver Personal Injury Law Firm Celebrates 8th Anniversary!

The Denver personal injury law firm, Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, is pleased to announce it is celebrating its 8th anniversary! We celebrate this milestone with great pride in our accomplishments and heartfelt gratitude to the amazing clients and professional colleagues we have had the privilege of working with. Throughout the years, we have worked carefully to control growth to ensure the highest standards of legal expertise, work ethic, and client loyalty. As we commemorate this important milestone and celebrate the history that brought us to this point, we continue to engage in ethical and diligent representation and look forward to the years to come. Thank you for your support and please contact our Denver personal injury law firm if you have been injured.

Read the full article

[bicyclelaw]

Denver Personal Injury Law Firm Celebrates 8th Anniversary!

The Denver personal injury law firm, Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, is pleased to announce it is celebrating its 8th anniversary! We celebrate this milestone with great pride in our accomplishments and heartfelt gratitude to the amazing clients and professional colleagues we have had the privilege of working with. Throughout the years, we have worked carefully to control growth to ensure the highest standards of legal expertise, work ethic, and client loyalty. As we commemorate this important milestone and celebrate the history that brought us to this point, we continue to engage in ethical and diligent representation and look forward to the years to come. Thank you for your support and please contact our Denver personal injury law firm if you have been injured.

Read the full article

[bicyclelaw]

Liability When Your Teenager Crashes Your Car

Can a vehicle owner be liable for a collision caused by a different member of the household? To put it simply, yes. All drivers are expected to know and abide by the Rules of the Road for the safe use and operation of a vehicle. Colorado law recognizes the “family car doctrine” as a separate cause of action available to victims of personal injury. This doctrine holds parents responsible for another person’s injuries if they lend the family car to a teenager who directly caused an accident. Elements of the Family Car Doctrine A victim of personal injury can establish the Family Car Doctrine by four elements: (1) the defendant was the head of the household; (2) the vehicle was used by a member of the household; (3) the defendant had control over the use of the vehicle; and (4) the vehicle was used with the express or implied permission of the defendant. How Do I Protect Myself? First and foremost, all parents who are allowing their children to operate a household vehicle should be sure they understand the Rules of the Road. A good resource for helping educate children is by reviewing the Colorado Driver Handbook. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide Colorado citizens with information on how to become a safe driver. It contains a summary of the laws, rules and safe driving practices applicable to all Colorado motorists. Taken a step further, parents should utilize the Rules of the Road in practical experiences. It is one thing for children to learn rules in order to get a driver’s permit and license, but it is something entirely different for them to know the rules and see how they are applied on the roads in Colorado. There is no substitute for a commonsense approach to safety. Finally, it is particularly wise for parents to increase their insurance coverage on any vehicle a teenage member of the household might be using. This is particularly true if the parents have considerable assets, such as real estate and vehicles. Most personal injury lawyers will not go after personal assets if there is sufficient insurance coverage. Contact our Denver Personal Injury Lawyers For practical purposes, the Denver personal injury lawyers at Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, strongly suggest proper education and experience for all drivers. Parents should take time to educate and allow for pragmatic experience before allowing their teenage children to borrow a household vehicle. If you have been involved in an accident, contact the Colorado personal injury law firm of Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, at 720.863.6904 or email us for your free consultation. Our lawyers handle a wide range of personal injury cases, including Motor Vehicle Accidents, Bicycle Accidents, Pedestrian Accidents, Slip & Fall Accidents, and Dog Bites & Attacks. We service Arvada, Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Commerce City, Lakewood, Littleton, Thornton, Westminster, Wheat Ridge, and other parts of metropolitan Denver, Colorado. Read the full article

[bicyclelaw]

Liability When A Friend Crashes Your Car

Can a vehicle owner be liable for a collision caused by someone who borrowed his vehicle? To put it simply, yes. While a vehicle owner is ordinarily not liable for the negligence of someone who borrows his vehicle, Colorado law recognizes the doctrine of negligent entrustment as a separate cause of action. This doctrine articulates a set of standards that imputes liability on a vehicle owner if he knows or has reason to know the recipient is likely to use the vehicle in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others. Common Examples of Negligent Entrustment Common examples of cases involving negligent entrustment include: • The recipient is under the influence of drugs or alcohol; • The recipient does not have a driver’s license; • The recipient is inexperienced driving; • The recipient is elderly with decreased sight or reaction time; • The recipient has a history of reckless/ careless driving or collision. Elements of Negligent Entrustment A victim of personal injury can establish a claim for negligent entrustment by three evidentiary elements: (1) the owner permitted a third party to use a motor vehicle (2) under the control/ right to control of the owner and (3) the owner knew or had reason to know the recipient intended or was likely to use the vehicle in a manner so as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to himself or others. The “reason to know” standard requires actual knowledge from a person of reasonable intelligence. It does not impose a duty for the vehicle owner to ascertain unknown facts. In order to prevail on a claim for negligent entrustment, an injured party must produce evidence the owner knew or had reason to know the recipient would likely use the vehicle in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm. Other factors used to determine the existence of a duty include the risk involved, the foreseeability and likelihood of injury as weighed against the social utility of the at-fault driver’s conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against injury or harm, and the consequences of placing the burden upon the at-fault party. No one factor is controlling, and whether a duty should be imposed in a particular case is essentially one of fairness under contemporary standards. Colorado courts have also imputed knowledge if, during the course of use, the recipient uses the vehicle in a manner involving harm. If the vehicle owner acquires information the recipient was likely to use or was using the vehicle in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself or others at a time when the owner had the right and ability to exercise control, there would exist a duty to take reasonable actions to prevent continuation of the entrustment. Case Law Surrounding Negligent Entrustment In Hasegawa v. Day, the Colorado Court of Appeals permitted a claim for negligent entrustment against the owner of a vehicle. In that case, a young man was committed to the custody of the Colorado Department of Institutions as an adjudicated delinquent. After two months, he was released to his parents, who understood they had the right and responsibility to control their son and their son had a duty and obligation to follow their directions. One month after being released, the parents wrote a check to the son in the sum of $1,750.00 for the purchase of the vehicle involved in the collision. While title was placed in the son’s name and all expenses of operation and maintenance were paid by the son, the car was insured under the parents’ liability policy. Approximately one month later, the son caused an accident while intoxicated. The Court highlighted the fact the son had 44 juvenile police and court contacts, which included issues stemming from drugs, narcotics, and alcohol. According to the Court, the son demonstrated impulsive and anti-social behavior. The Court determined reasonable persons could conclude the parents knew or had reason to know that their son was likely to use the automobile in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Based on the facts, the Court found that, by providing the son a vehicle, a jury may find the parents had negligently entrusted him with a dangerous instrument that could (and did) cause personal harm to another. Contact our Denver Personal Injury Lawyers For practical purposes, the Denver personal injury lawyers at Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, strongly suggest vehicle owners exercise extreme caution and diligence to assure the intended recipient does not have a predisposition to operate the loaned vehicle in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to others. Failure to do so could result in the vehicle owner being held directly liable for the driver’s negligence vis a vis a negligent entrustment cause of action. If you have been involved in an accident, contact the Colorado personal injury law firm of Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, at 720.863.6904 or email us for a free consultation. Our lawyers handle a wide range of personal injury cases, including Motor Vehicle Accidents, Bicycle Accidents, Pedestrian Accidents, Slip & Fall Accidents, and Dog Bites & Attacks. We service Arvada, Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Commerce City, Lakewood, Littleton, Thornton, Westminster, Wheat Ridge, and other parts of metropolitan Denver, Colorado. Read the full article

[bicyclelaw]

Colorado Food Poisoning Lawyers

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 48 million people suffer from food poisoning each year. The thought of contracting food poisoning can be petrifying. Often associated with discomfort, most foodborne illnesses are relatively mild and clear up within a few hours or days. In some cases, however, individuals experience organ damage, coma, and even death. If you experienced symptoms related to food poisoning, it is important to contact our Colorado food poisoning lawyers to learn about your rights. What is Food Poisoning? Food poisoning is caused by ingesting food or water that has been contaminated with certain bacteria, viruses, toxins, or parasites. Food poisoning occurs when food is improperly handled during the manufacturing process or is not prepared at proper temperatures. What are Common Types of Food Poisoning? Some of the more common types of food poisoning include: Staphylococcus Aureus: Symptoms appear 1-6 hours after eating and include stomach cramps, nausea, and vomiting. Staphylococcus aureus has been associated with improperly cooked foods; Clostridium Perfringens: Symptoms appear 6- 24 hours after eating and include stomach cramps and diarrhea. The symptoms are usually sudden and last roughly one day. Clostridium Perfringens is associated with improperly handled beef or poultry, precooked foods, and gravies; Norovirus: Symptoms appear 12-48 hours after eating and include nausea, stomach pain, diarrhea, and vomiting. Norovirus is associated with fresh fruit, vegetables, leafy greens, and shellfish. Salmonella: Symptoms appear 12-72 hours after eating and include fever, diarrhea, vomiting, and stomach cramps. Salmonella is associated with undercooked or raw turkey, chicken, eggs, raw fruits, unpasteurized milk and juice, raw vegetables, and some animals. Clostridium Botulinum: Symptoms appear 18-36 hours after eating and include drooping eyelids, blurry vision, double vision, difficulty swallowing, dry mouth, difficulty breathing, muscle weakness, and paralysis. Botulism is associated with foods that were not properly fermented or canned, as well as illicit alcohol; Vibrio: Symptoms appear 24-72 hours after eating and include nausea, stomach cramps, watery diarrhea, chills, and fever. Vibrio is associated with undercooked or raw shellfish, usually oysters. Campylobacter: Symptoms appear 48-72 hours after eating and include stomach cramps, fever, and bloody diarrhea. This germ is caused by contaminated water. E Coli: Symptoms appear within three to four days and include diarrhea that is often bloody, vomiting, and severe stomach cramps. E. Coli is associated with unpasteurized milk and juice, undercooked or raw ground beef, contaminated water, raw sprouts, and raw vegetables. Cyclospora: Symptoms appear in approximately 1 week and include stomach cramps, increased gas, fatigue, nausea, bloating, watery diarrhea, weight loss, and loss of appetite. This germ is associated raw fruits, vegetables, and herbs. Listeria: Symptoms appear in 1-4 weeks and include stiff neck, headaches, loss of balance, confusion, fever, convulsions, and muscle aches. Pregnant women may experience flu-like symptoms, including fever, muscle aches, and fatigue. The infection could cause death or serious illness in newborns. Listeria is associated with soft cheeses such as queso fresco, melons, sprouts, hot dogs, deli meats, pâtés, smoked seafood, and unpasteurized milk. What Symptoms are Associated with Food Poisoning? Most food poisoning cases are mild in nature and resolve within a couple of days. The more serious cases of food poisoning carry more significant symptoms. The common symptoms associated with foodborne illnesses include the following: Bloody stools Fever: Diarrhea; Vomiting; Abdominal Cramps and Pain; Headaches; Loss of Appetite; Weakness; Dehydration. How is Food Poisoning Diagnosed? To diagnose food poisoning, a medical doctor must compile a detailed medical and personal history that includes the length and type of symptoms and the foods consumed. The doctor will also perform a comprehensive physical examination to look for any indicators associated with food poisoning. If necessary, the doctor will order diagnostic testing, which may include a stool culture, blood test, and a stool examination to identify parasites. If infectious organisms are found in the stool, the doctor will notify the local health department to determine if there is a link to other food poisoning cases in the community. What is the Recommended Treatment for Food Poisoning? The recommended treatment for food poisoning depends greatly on the source of the illness and the severity of symptoms. Many cases resolve without any treatment within a few days. However, every individual who suffers from food poisoning should consider available treatments including: Lost Fluid Replacement – Because of extensive vomiting and diarrhea, the patient can easily lose essential electrolytes and fluids and will need to replace calcium, potassium, and sodium to ensure their electrolytes remain balanced in the body. Antibiotics – If the source of the contaminated food is caused by bacteria, the doctor may recommend antibiotics, usually given intravenously during hospitalization. This is especially important when pregnant to prevent the baby from becoming infected. Can I sue a Restaurant for Food Poisoning? It is possible for a victim of food poisoning to sue the company that manufactures the contaminated food or the restaurant that served it. Both entities may be held liable for failure to exercise reasonable care in preparing and storing food. They may also be found strictly liable for a defective food product. Contact our Colorado Food Poisoning Lawyers To make this determination, it is important to contact our Colorado food poisoning lawyers to investigate. If you have questions about whether you have a legal cause of action against the manufacturer or restaurant that caused your food poisoning, contact the Colorado food poisoning lawyers at Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, today. There is no charge for the consultation. Our Colorado personal injury law firm is committed to client satisfaction. Contact us today. Read the full article

[bicyclelaw]

Colorado Car Insurance Rates Continue to Increase

In recent years, many drivers in Colorado have seen an increase in car insurance premiums. If you are cautious driver with a clean record, you may be left asking why your rates changed for no obvious reason. Unfortunately, insurance premiums are not based solely on your own risk factor as a driver. To the contrary, there are many factors that lead to an increase in insurance rates. Why are Insurance Rates Increasing in Colorado? Auto insurance is a heavily regulated business after all. Simply put, there is very little margin for insurance companies to absorb increases in costs. If costs go up for insurance companies, they will offset by charging customers increased premiums. This applies to all insureds, even those who do everything right on the road. To help you understand why your insurance rates increases for no apparent reason, here are 11 factors that could have contributed. Cost of Living: The cost of living has been steadily rising in Colorado over the past few years. The average state-wide annual car insurance premiums have increased by $272.00 in 2018 with Colorado drivers paying an average of $1,682.00. City: Car insurance prices are set at the local level with many location-specific variables influencing premiums. That means drivers can see major differences in auto insurance rates based on their zip code. Gender: while gender does not have a sizable effect on auto insurance premiums, it is used as a rating factor by car insurance companies. On average, women pay an average premium of $40.00 more than men. Age: As people age, car insurance rates change. As a general rule, car insurance is more costly for teenage drivers, as they are often viewed as inexperienced. For example, auto insurance costs $6,956.00 annually for a 16-year-old motorist but only $1,289.00 per year for drivers aged between 50-59. Marital Status: Newlyweds typically receive a reduction on insurance premiums by an average of $86.00 per year. Credit: auto insurance companies reference credit history as a way of determining how reliable a prospective customer will be. Data trends suggest drivers who maintain solid credit scores are more insurable, as they are less likely to file claims. In Colorado, drivers who carry excellent credit can save an average of $1,556.87 per year, contrasted with drivers with less-favorable credit scores. Risk: Insurers who were determined to be at fault in a car accident or guilty of a vehicular infraction, may see an increase in car insurance premiums. In Colorado, a person’s first minor at-fault accident results in an additional $619.07 per year. Vehicle: Insurance companies use various statistics to determine insurance rates for drives, with the vehicle’s make and model another important factor. Luxury sports cares and foreign-made vehicles are usually more expensive to insure because their parts are more expensive to replace. Some of the cheapest cars to insure are models such as Honda, Subaru, and Jeep. While popular cars in Denver, it is also worth mentioning that these are also the top of the list for stolen vehicles in Colorado. Insurance companies use these statistics as well, bumping insurance rates for car models more likely to be stolen. Rising Repair Costs: Newer vehicles have more sophisticated technology. When these items are damages, it costs more to fix the vehicle. Rising Medical Costs: As there are more drivers operating vehicles in Colorado, accidents have increased. This causes an increase in how much is paid out by insurance companies for each claim. Rising medical costs is another reason for steep hike in price for costs per claim, which translates to higher auto insurance rates. According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, national health spending is projected to rise at an average annual rate of 5.5 percent from 2017 to 2027. Spending will reach $5.7 trillion by that time. Extreme Weather: Colorado has been subjected to significant weather events, including blizzards, floods, tornadoes, and an incredible amount of hail. These catastrophes lead to an overall increase in claims in specific areas, including the Denver metropolitan area. How to Fight an Insurance Premium Increase Notwithstanding the above-information, the reality is that if people are not being issued citations or getting into accidents, their car insurance premiums should generally go down over time. This is because your driving history demonstrates to the insurance company that you are a good driver and as a result of the loyalty you have for the insurance company. However, it is possible your insurance rates will increase without reason. Rest assured, you may be able to reverse the increase. Below are a list of steps you should follow to fight an insurance premium increase in Colorado: Call Your Insurer: Call your insurance company and ask why your rates have increased. As outlined above, the increase may be in reaction to an increase in insurance rates approved generally. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get around those. Other increases are the result of your insurance status. Provide Necessary Information: When speaking with your insurance company, it is necessary to provide information to prove the increase in premiums was based on false information. For example, if your rates increased because your insurance company mistakenly believed you were in an accident, you may be able to get back on your insurer's good graces by submitting documentation demonstrating contrarily. Providing an update driving record can be important since many insurance companies do not pull driving records often. Provide a Corrected Credit Report: When your insurance rates increase because of derogatory information on your credit report, your insurance company should notify you and give you the right to pull a free report. If you are able to provide evidence the negative information is inaccurate and it is removed from your report, the credit bureau will notify your insurance company of the erroneous report. Give Evidence of Other Mistakes Contact the Colorado Insurance Commissioner: If you believe your insurance company is not being responsive to your requests to fix a premium increase based on inaccurate information, you can contact the state's insurance commissioner. While the commissioner may not be able to help you, it is another resource that may provide leverage. Switch Insurance Companies In addition to the foregoing, you may also want to review your insurance policy to see if there are unnecessary coverage. For example, you could increase your car insurance deductible for collision and comprehensive coverage. While this measure may lead to increased deductibles in an accident or if your vehicle is stolen, it also means you are paying less of a premium per month. You may also want to ask your insurance company if they provide any discounts. Many companies give discounts for good students or for being a good driver. It is worth looking into as well. Contact a Denver Personal Injury Law Firm If you have questions about your insurance before or after a collision, contact the Denver Personal Injury Law Firm of Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, at 720.863.6904 or email us. Our lawyers handle a wide range of personal injury cases, including Motor Vehicle Accidents, Bicycle Accidents, Pedestrian Accidents, Slip & Fall Accidents, and Dog Bites & Attacks. We service Arvada, Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Commerce City, Lakewood, Littleton, Thornton, Westminster, Wheat Ridge, and other parts of metropolitan Denver, Colorado. Read the full article

[bicyclelaw]

Seatbelts Save Lives in Colorado

Each year, traffic accidents take the lives of approximately 1.2 million men, women, and children around the world, and serious injure millions more. According to the National Highway Safety Administration (“NHSA”), car accidents continue to be the leading cause of death in the United States. While new technology for vehicles increases each year, seat belts continue to be the single most effective feature to reduce the severity of injuries that result in car crashes. Failure to use a seat belt is a major risk factor for traffic deaths and injuries. In 2018, for example, the Colorado Department of Transportation estimated 215 unbuckled drivers and passengers were killed in crashes in the State, accounting for more than half of the 410 total passenger vehicle deaths. What Statistics Support Seat belt Use? According to the National Safety Council, seat belt use has risen over the past several decades to around 90% in recent years. Wearing a seat belt can reduce the risk of crash injuries by 50% Seat belts saved more than 75,000 lives from 2004 to 2008 42% of passenger vehicle occupants killed in 2007 were unbelted People are less likely to wear seat belts when they are alone in their car or driving at night How do Seat Belts Work? While traveling in a motor vehicle, a person’s body is moving at the same speed as the vehicle. A car accident may stop the vehicle, but it does not stop a person’s body, which continues with forward momentum. A seat belt prevents a person’s body from flying out of the front windshield by locking it in. Seat belts use a three-point system, which has the shape of the letter “y.” Upon impact, the seat belt disperses a person’s momentum into the chest, shoulders, and pelvis. While this may leave a person sore and bruised (depending on the speed a person is traveling), it does keep the person in his or her seat. What are the Benefits of Wearing a Seat Belt? The most obvious benefit of wearing a seat belt is that it keeps an occupant in his or her seat during a collision. This, in turn, ensures to keep the person inside the vehicle during a crash but it also prevents the person from colliding with the dashboard, steering wheel, windshield, or any other component of the vehicle. Moreover, the seat belt disperses the force a person absorbs from the accident into more durable areas of that person’s body. In addition to the foregoing, a seat belt will help a person’s body slow down during an accident. Sudden changes in speed are a common cause of injury so seat belts help slow a person’s body down. This greatly reduces the risk of suffering whiplash or other serious injuries. Both head and spine injuries can be fatal, leave a person impaired for life, and/or cause a difficult recovery process. What are Common Myths Surrounding Seat Belt Use? “I will get trapped in the car:” The number of times this has occurred is minute. Staying inside protects you from debris, metal, and glass in a collision. Seat belts also help to prevent head injury and stay conscious. It’s easier to get out of a car when you’re conscious – seat belt or not. “Seat belts are uncomfortable:” A study researching seat belt comfort found that, once adjusted properly, most subjects were far more comfortable in their seat. It is also easy to point out that a serious injury, such as a broken bone, is going to feel much worse. “I have an airbag:” It is a common misconception that airbags have replaced seat belts. They are meant to be used in conjunction. The NHTSA has estimated that airbags are 40% more effective at preventing serious injury when the driver or passenger was also wearing a seat belt. “If I’m thrown, I’ll be thrown out of the wreckage:” Statistically speaking, this is inaccurate. A person is nearly four times more likely to die if thrown from a vehicle. “I’m not putting anyone else in danger:” If a driver begins to lose control, being strapped in may help him/her maintain enough control to lessen a crash. Passengers may fly into the driver’s lap, making it even harder for them to regain control, or causing them to turn the wheel the other direction. Does Colorado Law Require Seat belts? Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-237 highlights “every driver of and every front seat passenger in a motor vehicle equipped with a safety belt system shall wear a fastened safety belt while the motor vehicle is being operated on a street or highway in this state.” Drivers are required to wear seat belts, with the exception of specific types of jobs, including ambulance personnel and mail carriers, who require exemptions to perform their duties. According to CDOT, children under the age of 15 must wear seat belts or be in an appropriate car seat at all times. Passengers who are over the age of 15 can use their discretion on whether to use a seat belt in the backseat. Contact a Colorado Personal Injury Law Firm If you have been involved in an accident, contact the Colorado personal injury law firm of Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, at 720.863.6904 or email us for your free consultation. Our lawyers handle a wide range of personal injury cases, including Motor Vehicle Accidents, Bicycle Accidents, Pedestrian Accidents, Slip & Fall Accidents, and Dog Bites & Attacks. We service Arvada, Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Commerce City, Lakewood, Littleton, Thornton, Westminster, Wheat Ridge, and other parts of metropolitan Denver, Colorado. Read the full article

[bicyclelaw]

ERISA Impacts Recovery in Personal Injury Cases

In Colorado personal injury cases, attorneys are required to resolve healthcare-related liens incurred by victims of personal injury before they receive full disbursement. Subrogation is the term describing a legal right held by health insurance carriers, Medicare, and Medicare to pursue reimbursement for medical expenses paid by a benefit plan. One federal law has an enormous impact on subrogation - the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). What is Colorado's Law Regarding Subrogation in Injury Claims? Colorado has exceptionally generous legislation regarding the reimbursement of health insurance carriers following a personal injury settlement. Specifically, C.R.S. 10-1-135 limits the ability of a "payer of benefits" to seek reimbursement of benefits in a personal injury claim "only if the injured party has first been fully compensated for all damages arising out of the claim." The Colorado statute does not clarify what is meant by "fully compensated" but does specify a presumption that when the injured party receives the policy limits from the liability insurer, he or she has not been fully compensated. In order for the subrogated health insurance carrier to evaluate whether an insured was made whole, the insured must provide Notice detailing (1) the total amount of recovery; (2) the coverage limits applicable; and (3) the amount of costs charged to the insured. If, upon review of the Notice, the subrogated health insurance carrier disputes the made whole argument, they are required to request arbitration no later than 60 days. In that event, the insured and carrier jointly select an arbitrator to resolve the dispute. C.R.S. 10-1-135 also legislates the Common Fund Doctrine by making subrogated health insurance carriers who successfully seek reimbursement responsible for a proportionate share of attorney's fees. The law is based in equity, requiring each member of the group benefiting from the settlement to bear a portion of the costs of obtaining the funds. The doctrine is designed to protect victims of personal injury in Colorado by preventing insurance company that did not participate or assist in the personal injury claim from submitting for full subrogation without helping pay attorney's fees. What is ERISA?  ERISA is a federal law designed to protect employees of large companies.  It was originally created to establish minimum standards so individuals would have access to affordable and fair health plans. Most Colorado employers pay premiums to a health insurance carrier and the carrier pays for medical care rendered to the employees. There are two types of ERISA plans: (1) self-funded/ self-insured and (2) unfunded/ fully-insured. Under a self-funded/ self-insured ERISA plan, the employer - not a health insurance carrier - pays medical benefits directly through its general assets or through a trust fund established for that purpose. If a plan is unfunded/ fully-insured, on the other hand, the employer does not pay the benefits, bur rather, the employer purchases an insurance policy via the plan and the health insurance carrier pays the losses. The type of plan has a dramatic impact on the subrogation potential and recovery. Generally, a self-funded ERISA Plan always receives the benefits of ERISA preemption and fully-funded ERISA Plans sometimes receives the benefits of ERISA preemption. If the ERISA Plan is fully-funded, the Plan's language can, in certain circumstances, trump state law and allow preemption. Most employees do not know their plans are self funded because their health insurance cards show the managing health insurance carrier's name. Understanding a health insurance plan is necessary to determine the amount of subrogation. ERISA policies are also required to include language establishing the plan's provisions claiming their right to subrogation. The plan must explicitly authorize their claim for reimbursement. Most people are not aware the language exists but drafters know exactly what to include for reimbursement clauses to be enforceable. Accordingly, if an ERISA contract neglects to include the proper language, the ERISA provider may not be entitled to receive the right to reimbursement. However, this is a rarity. As long as the proper contractual language exists and the plan is self-funded, ERISA liens will likely attach to personal injury settlement proceeds. Therefore, when a personal injury victim in Colorado accepts benefits from an ERISA self-funded plan, ERISA receives a subrogation interest in the personal injury proceeds. How Can I Determine if my Plan is Subject to ERISA? With the self-funded v. insured question looming, the next question is where to look and what to look for to answer this all important question. The most important document to review is the Summary Plan Description ("SPD"). The SPD is a detailed document that informs plan participants about how the plan operates and is managed. Among other things, the SPD must clearly identify in easily understood language the following items: A description or summary of the benefits; The plan name, sponsor, and administrator; Funding mechanism; Participation and qualification guidelines; Calculation methods for service and benefits; Benefit vesting schedules; Benefit payment procedures and timing; Claims submission process; Claims appeal process; Address for service of legal process; Circumstances that may result in ineligibility or a denial of benefits; A statement of participants’ ERISA rights and other technical notices. In the event an employee has questions regarding the plan, a participant can request the SPD from the plan administrator. Every plan administrator must provide a copy of the SPD to participants (1) when a new plan takes effect; (2) when an employee becomes eligible to participate in a plan; and (3) upon written request of a plan participant. Outside of the SPD, another helpful place to evaluate whether an insurance plan is subject to ERISA is by reviewing the Form 5500 online. This is also the fastest way to get an idea of how a Plan is funded. The Form 5500 is a federal filing that must be filed annually by each employer maintaining an ERISA plan. To access this information, go to www.freeerisa.com and search an employer's name. There is no cost associated with the search. After pulling the Form 5500, participants can review page 1, elements 9a ("plan funding arrangement") and 9b ("plan benefit arrangement"). Each of these elements list the following options: (1) insurance; (2) Section 412(e)(3); (3) Trust; and (4) General Assets of the Sponsor. If boxes (3) and/or (4) are marked on both 9a and 9b, the inquiry stops because trusts and general assets exclude all policies of insurance and therefore are clearly fully self-funded Plans. If one or more of the boxes are checked, the inquiry continues through review of the schedules attached to Form 5500. Schedules A and C are guiding. Each of these schedules provide further details concerning the relationship between the payor of benefits and the Plan. Confusion often lies in looking at the Form 5500 because large companies will have several benefits plans reported, sometimes resulting in multiple Schedule As and Cs attached to the Form 5500 (i.e. one for a dental plan; one for a vision plan; one for a life insurance plan etc.).  This is expected when dealing with multiple funding arrangements being selected that describes the multiple plans. If, upon review, there is no Schedule A Form, it is still necessary to review Schedule C. If there is a Schedule A Form, it is important to review the  named insurance company under Part 1(a). In addition, it is important to review Part III(8). There are multiple boxes that can be checked. Box 8(a) ("Health") should be marked. If any other box in Box 8(a) is marked other than (i) "Stop-Loss," the plan is insured and Colorado law applies. If there is no Schedule A Form, the necessary information is likely on Schedule C. On Schedule C, it is necessary to look at "Claims Processing," "Contract Administrator," and "Plan Administrator." An insurer providing insurance will not listed on Schedule C and therefore it is a fully self-funded Plan. In addition to the foregoing, some Plans use Stop-Loss Insurance to pay claims. Stop loss insurance is an arrangement between the employer and an insurance company whereby the Plan is self-funded up to a certain predetermined maximum loss (either per employee or in the aggregate) and once that level is reached, the insurance company pays the rest of the benefit.  Again, this will be revealed on the Schedule A. What Documents Should I Request to Determine if ERISA Applies? While the Form 5500 and Schedules A and C will often reveal whether the Plan is self-funded or insured, it remains important to request documents from the Plan to be sure you have the funding relationship correct.  ERISA negotiations come down to what the Plan language itself says or does not say so getting the Plan itself is absolutely necessary. When requesting documentation to determine whether ERISA applies, it is necessary to request the following: The Summary Plan Description; The Actual Plan or Contract; The Latest Summary Annual Report; The Latest Terminal Report; The Bargaining Agreement; The Trust Agreement; Any evidence your client was supplied with a copy of the Summary Plan Description. When dealing with a third party administrator (Optum; Rawlings etc.) representing the Plan and/or the Plan Administrator, they should be able to get this documentation. Oftentimes, the third party administrator is only able to get the Summary Plan Description.  In those situations, request the documentation pursuant to Section 1024(b)(4), Title 29, US Code.  Under this code section, should the Plan Administrator fail to provide the documentation within 30 days, a fine of $100 a day until production can be obtained by the plan participant. Contact a Colorado Personal Injury Law Firm Today If you are injured in an accident and your medical bills are paid by an employer funded plan, whether it is partially insured or completely self-funded, you need to contact a Colorado personal injury law firm immediately. The attorneys at the Denver-based personal injury law firm of Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, know how to handle ERISA Plans. Our attorneys have extensive experience evaluating employee benefits health plan liens. Make sure to hire a Colorado personal injury law firm that knows how to handle ERISA health and benefits plans. Contact the Denver personal injury law firm of Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, to learn more.   Read the full article

[bicyclelaw]

ERISA Impacts Recovery in Personal Injury Cases

In Colorado personal injury cases, attorneys are required to resolve healthcare-related liens incurred by victims of personal injury before they receive full disbursement. Subrogation is the term describing a legal right held by health insurance carriers, Medicare, and Medicare to pursue reimbursement for medical expenses paid by a benefit plan. One federal law has an enormous impact on subrogation - the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). What is Colorado's Law Regarding Subrogation in Injury Claims? Colorado has exceptionally generous legislation regarding the reimbursement of health insurance carriers following a personal injury settlement. Specifically, C.R.S. 10-1-135 limits the ability of a "payer of benefits" to seek reimbursement of benefits in a personal injury claim "only if the injured party has first been fully compensated for all damages arising out of the claim." The Colorado statute does not clarify what is meant by "fully compensated" but does specify a presumption that when the injured party receives the policy limits from the liability insurer, he or she has not been fully compensated. In order for the subrogated health insurance carrier to evaluate whether an insured was made whole, the insured must provide Notice detailing (1) the total amount of recovery; (2) the coverage limits applicable; and (3) the amount of costs charged to the insured. If, upon review of the Notice, the subrogated health insurance carrier disputes the made whole argument, they are required to request arbitration no later than 60 days. In that event, the insured and carrier jointly select an arbitrator to resolve the dispute. C.R.S. 10-1-135 also legislates the Common Fund Doctrine by making subrogated health insurance carriers who successfully seek reimbursement responsible for a proportionate share of attorney's fees. The law is based in equity, requiring each member of the group benefiting from the settlement to bear a portion of the costs of obtaining the funds. The doctrine is designed to protect victims of personal injury in Colorado by preventing insurance company that did not participate or assist in the personal injury claim from submitting for full subrogation without helping pay attorney's fees. What is ERISA?  ERISA is a federal law designed to protect employees of large companies.  It was originally created to establish minimum standards so individuals would have access to affordable and fair health plans. Most Colorado employers pay premiums to a health insurance carrier and the carrier pays for medical care rendered to the employees. There are two types of ERISA plans: (1) self-funded/ self-insured and (2) unfunded/ fully-insured. Under a self-funded/ self-insured ERISA plan, the employer - not a health insurance carrier - pays medical benefits directly through its general assets or through a trust fund established for that purpose. If a plan is unfunded/ fully-insured, on the other hand, the employer does not pay the benefits, bur rather, the employer purchases an insurance policy via the plan and the health insurance carrier pays the losses. The type of plan has a dramatic impact on the subrogation potential and recovery. Generally, a self-funded ERISA Plan always receives the benefits of ERISA preemption and fully-funded ERISA Plans sometimes receives the benefits of ERISA preemption. If the ERISA Plan is fully-funded, the Plan's language can, in certain circumstances, trump state law and allow preemption. Most employees do not know their plans are self funded because their health insurance cards show the managing health insurance carrier's name. Understanding a health insurance plan is necessary to determine the amount of subrogation. ERISA policies are also required to include language establishing the plan's provisions claiming their right to subrogation. The plan must explicitly authorize their claim for reimbursement. Most people are not aware the language exists but drafters know exactly what to include for reimbursement clauses to be enforceable. Accordingly, if an ERISA contract neglects to include the proper language, the ERISA provider may not be entitled to receive the right to reimbursement. However, this is a rarity. As long as the proper contractual language exists and the plan is self-funded, ERISA liens will likely attach to personal injury settlement proceeds. Therefore, when a personal injury victim in Colorado accepts benefits from an ERISA self-funded plan, ERISA receives a subrogation interest in the personal injury proceeds. How Can I Determine if my Plan is Subject to ERISA? With the self-funded v. insured question looming, the next question is where to look and what to look for to answer this all important question. The most important document to review is the Summary Plan Description ("SPD"). The SPD is a detailed document that informs plan participants about how the plan operates and is managed. Among other things, the SPD must clearly identify in easily understood language the following items: A description or summary of the benefits; The plan name, sponsor, and administrator; Funding mechanism; Participation and qualification guidelines; Calculation methods for service and benefits; Benefit vesting schedules; Benefit payment procedures and timing; Claims submission process; Claims appeal process; Address for service of legal process; Circumstances that may result in ineligibility or a denial of benefits; A statement of participants’ ERISA rights and other technical notices. In the event an employee has questions regarding the plan, a participant can request the SPD from the plan administrator. Every plan administrator must provide a copy of the SPD to participants (1) when a new plan takes effect; (2) when an employee becomes eligible to participate in a plan; and (3) upon written request of a plan participant. Outside of the SPD, another helpful place to evaluate whether an insurance plan is subject to ERISA is by reviewing the Form 5500 online. This is also the fastest way to get an idea of how a Plan is funded. The Form 5500 is a federal filing that must be filed annually by each employer maintaining an ERISA plan. To access this information, go to www.freeerisa.com and search an employer's name. There is no cost associated with the search. After pulling the Form 5500, participants can review page 1, elements 9a ("plan funding arrangement") and 9b ("plan benefit arrangement"). Each of these elements list the following options: (1) insurance; (2) Section 412(e)(3); (3) Trust; and (4) General Assets of the Sponsor. If boxes (3) and/or (4) are marked on both 9a and 9b, the inquiry stops because trusts and general assets exclude all policies of insurance and therefore are clearly fully self-funded Plans. If one or more of the boxes are checked, the inquiry continues through review of the schedules attached to Form 5500. Schedules A and C are guiding. Each of these schedules provide further details concerning the relationship between the payor of benefits and the Plan. Confusion often lies in looking at the Form 5500 because large companies will have several benefits plans reported, sometimes resulting in multiple Schedule As and Cs attached to the Form 5500 (i.e. one for a dental plan; one for a vision plan; one for a life insurance plan etc.).  This is expected when dealing with multiple funding arrangements being selected that describes the multiple plans. If, upon review, there is no Schedule A Form, it is still necessary to review Schedule C. If there is a Schedule A Form, it is important to review the  named insurance company under Part 1(a). In addition, it is important to review Part III(8). There are multiple boxes that can be checked. Box 8(a) ("Health") should be marked. If any other box in Box 8(a) is marked other than (i) "Stop-Loss," the plan is insured and Colorado law applies. If there is no Schedule A Form, the necessary information is likely on Schedule C. On Schedule C, it is necessary to look at "Claims Processing," "Contract Administrator," and "Plan Administrator." An insurer providing insurance will not listed on Schedule C and therefore it is a fully self-funded Plan. In addition to the foregoing, some Plans use Stop-Loss Insurance to pay claims. Stop loss insurance is an arrangement between the employer and an insurance company whereby the Plan is self-funded up to a certain predetermined maximum loss (either per employee or in the aggregate) and once that level is reached, the insurance company pays the rest of the benefit.  Again, this will be revealed on the Schedule A. What Documents Should I Request to Determine if ERISA Applies? While the Form 5500 and Schedules A and C will often reveal whether the Plan is self-funded or insured, it remains important to request documents from the Plan to be sure you have the funding relationship correct.  ERISA negotiations come down to what the Plan language itself says or does not say so getting the Plan itself is absolutely necessary. When requesting documentation to determine whether ERISA applies, it is necessary to request the following: The Summary Plan Description; The Actual Plan or Contract; The Latest Summary Annual Report; The Latest Terminal Report; The Bargaining Agreement; The Trust Agreement; Any evidence your client was supplied with a copy of the Summary Plan Description. When dealing with a third party administrator (Optum; Rawlings etc.) representing the Plan and/or the Plan Administrator, they should be able to get this documentation. Oftentimes, the third party administrator is only able to get the Summary Plan Description.  In those situations, request the documentation pursuant to Section 1024(b)(4), Title 29, US Code.  Under this code section, should the Plan Administrator fail to provide the documentation within 30 days, a fine of $100 a day until production can be obtained by the plan participant. Contact a Colorado Personal Injury Law Firm Today If you are injured in an accident and your medical bills are paid by an employer funded plan, whether it is partially insured or completely self-funded, you need to contact a Colorado personal injury law firm immediately. The attorneys at the Denver-based personal injury law firm of Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, know how to handle ERISA Plans. Our attorneys have extensive experience evaluating employee benefits health plan liens. Make sure to hire a Colorado personal injury law firm that knows how to handle ERISA health and benefits plans. Contact the Denver personal injury law firm of Bowman & Chamberlain, LLC, to learn more.   Read the full article