After the debilitating accident, the Colorado woman was left unable to return to work and now supports her four children on Social Security disability payments.

This is just one example of the arrogance of insurers nationwide who want to cherry pick who they cover and arbitrarily look for excuses to cancel coverage in the middle of serious illnesses or injuries- just at the time you need your coverage the most! Kudos to the Colorado jurors for making the insurers pay a heavy price for their ill-advised actions. If more jurors will make similar gutsy rulings, insurance companies will be forced to deal with all of us in the fair manner we all deserve and expect.

Corporate giants Philip Morris, Exxon, State Farm, Dow Chemical, Pfizer, Nationwide Insurance, General Electric among others fork over contributions of up to $75,000 each to fund the effort to shut the courthouse door to more and more consumers. Their goal is to gain complete immunity for their negligent acts.

Errors in past annual reports have not deterred the ATRA. In 2005, ATRA was forced to admit they wrongly attacked the state of West Virginia and ranked it as the third worst “hellhole” in America. Despite having to admit to the errors, ATRA refused to change West Virginia’s ranking. West Virginia gradually rose in the rankings despite having passed caps on medical malpractice damages, elimination of third party bad faith, and significantly changed worker’s compensation rules. In 2002, Madison County, Illinois was labeled as one of the worst hellholes in America despite experiencing a sharp decrease in the number of lawsuits filed there. In fact, between 1986 and 2002, only 11 medical malpractice and wrongful death cases had resulted in a verdict- and only four of those verdicts were in favor of the plaintiff.

These type of “reports” along with dissemination of lists of outrageous case results which are total fabrications is simply another tool the insurance, pharma and manufacturing corporations use to cloud the truth about dangerous products and pressure state and federal lawmakers into more and more immunity from their negligent acts. If they had their way, no one would be able to file a wrongful death, defective products or medical malpractice claim. Consumers should be wary of these type of politically-driven publications. Look to see who is actually financially supporting the report and who benefits from any legislation being touted and you’ll discover the truth.

My client did not want to go to trial and wanted me to settle the case as she had been to court with another good attorney on a prior case that did not go well and left a bad taste in her mouth about the court system. Unfortunately, the insurance company did not think my client or her daughter’s injuries warranted a fair settlement value and my client was left with a decision whether to take a unfair amount or face the court system that she felt left a lot to be desired.

She decided to go to court and see what happens. On the day of Court my client was very nervous and apprehensive and questioned whether she was making the right decision to be there. She really did not want to bring a claim against the other driver, but she felt she was not treated fairly by the insurance company. When the defendant driver came to court she was also nervous and she was accompanied by her two grown daughters who were there for support.

We then introduced ourselves and everyone apologized for having to be here and that it was nothing personal between anyone. The defendant driver felt bad for running in the back of my client and my client felt bad for bringing a claim against her. Unfortunately, the law does not allow you to bring only against the insurance company and not the at fault driver except in limited circumstances and this was not one of them. Prior to trial it was agreed that my client would not get an excess judgment against the other driver and would limit her recovery to the applicable insurance limits. After many tears were shed before the first witness was sworn, the trial proceeded on. When the trial was over and the judge rendered a verdict that was substantially more than what the insurance company offered but within the policy limits, both my client and the other driver hugged and shed more tears that it was over and there was peace between them and justice was finally served. When it was all said it done I personally felt this was one of my rewarding trials and that it reaffirmed why I choose to become a trial lawyer.

This is the first trial in the country of a claim involving the bone-strengthening drug. Worse news for Novartis is the effect the verdict will likely have on 500 other consolidated Zometa cases currently pending in New Jersey state courts and federal court in Tennessee.

In the Montana case the plaintiff developed serious dental and jaw-related problems after taking Zometa for several years. Her condition is incurable and will result in lifelong disability. Her lawsuit alleged Novartis knew patients taking Zometa were vulnerable to a degenerative jaw disorder called osteonecrosis or bone death, particularly patients who undergo invasive dental procedures such as tooth extraction. She claimed Novartis failed to adequately warn her or her doctors of the risks.

At trial Novartis was accused of playing down the drug’s risks and obscured and delaying the release of information to the public and medical community in order to control the public relations fallout from the disclosure and maximize their marketing of the drug. Internal emails introduced at trial showed Novartis knew of the drug’s risk through its own extensive research communicated by its medical research and marketing departments to company executives who actually tried to suppress the information.

Novartis claimed their warnings were adequate and the risks were included in their labels. According to the plaintiff’s attorney the Zometa label is on a small piece of paper in tiny print that is barely readable and folded 20 times like an accordion. If the label were printed in normal 12 point font it would be 22 pages long.

This is just the latest egregious example of a drug manufacturer putting profit over patient safety. The only way the public has to put a stop to this type of activity is to bring successful products liability cases in court that forces these giant corporations to do the right thing and inform consumers and the doctors prescribing these drugs.

The plaintiff was a newlywed with a 25-year old wife who was 3-months pregnant. A witness, who happened to be another 18-wheeler driver behind the defendant, testified that the defendant driver never slowed or swerved before crushing the Tollway truck. He also told the jury that the left lanes were free and clear, so the accident was entirely avoidable.

The defendant admitted negligence, but contended that Illinois Tollway was also negligent in the accident for not protecting the plaintiff’s decedent. Illinois Tollway denied any negligence in this case. After a trial that lasted 6 days, the jury found the defendant and their semi-truck driver at fault. The jury found Illinois Tollway not guilty.