Beware of Lawyers Who Call YOU after a serious accident.

Unsolicited phone calls from  personal injury lawyers after a serious car accident are a big problem.  I have had many clients get calls from lawyers they do not know and did not contact, usually from outside the Ottawa area , wanting to meeting with them after they are home from the hospital.

How did that lawyer get your home phone number? And your name?  And how did they know you were in an accident?  

The only way they could know is if someone willingly, maybe even for money, betrayed your privacy.

Maybe it was a tow truck driver, or a hospital staff member, or an insurance rep, but someone betrayed your privacy and released your personal information to a total stranger to you.   

 

Before letting these people into your home you need to decide if you really want your legal case in the hands of lawyers who have these side deals  that breached your privacy.

These lawyer will come to you house and  get you to sign all kinds of papers and will take copies of your identity documents like SIN numbers and driver’s licenses.  Sometimes you are still recovering from you injuries and on serious medication.

Be careful if you or a loved one are in a serious accident and is contacted directly by these kind of lawyers.  Injured people are very vulnerable after an accident and need a lot of help. Don’t just sign away more personal information to a strange lawyer without asking some key questions about how they found you.

At Girones Lawyers we will only contact you when you ask us to and we  will never release your name to any other people without your express consent.

All of our consultations are free call us today 1-866-701-5811 or email me directly at agirones@gironeslaw.com 

Andrea Girones

Andrea Girones is a personal injury lawyer in Ottawa, visit her website at www.gironeslawyers.com

How do you know if your Erb’s palsy was caused by medical negligence? If you answer YES to these questions, call a lawyer today.

September 14th 2014
 Was your erb's palsy caused by medical negligence? Ask yourself these 3 questions

1)      Is my  brachial plexus injury permanent?

The vast majority of brachial plexus birth injuries are resolved by 2 years of age. Nerves that are not severed can heal over time and much function can be restored. These injuries are  not typically caused by a doctor pulling.  After two years however the chances of the nerve regenerating are almost nil.  A permanent injury means more extensive nerve damage.

2)      Do I have severed or ruptured nerves? Usually this means  there has been surgery where a surgeon identifies nerve roots that are severed or ruptured from the spinal cord ( also called avulsions). Severed roots will never regenerated themselves on their own and are almost never caused by “nature”

3)      Did I have Shoulder Dystocia at birth?  This  obstetrical complication is usually ( but not always) identified in your mother’s birth records.  Typically you were a larger baby ( over 4000 grams) and your mother may also have been heavy. Diabetic moms also tend to have large babies. BPI accompanied by Shoulder dystocia is highly linked to medical neglect.

Sometimes your lawyers will need to request the medical records themselves to gather more detail. But these three items are the biggest red flags for an Erb’s palsy lesion caused by a doctor at delivery. These case are compensable and should be reviewed by a birth injury lawyer.

Andrea Girones is a personal injury lawyer in Ottawa, visit her website at www.gironeslawyers.com

Another resolution of a  Brachial Plexus Erb’s Palsy Law Suit

This case proceeded to trial before a Judge and Jury. After two weeks of trial the case was resolved shortly before the Judge was to charge the jury.

Below are the kind words from our client’s father.  Names  have been changed to protect the privacy of the injured child.

Alex and I cannot even begin to express our overwhelming sense of gratitude and thankfulness for the way in which you brought our case to a successful conclusion.

Lorenzo - you are one awesome man! Your kindness, compassion, understanding and willingness to advocate and give a voice for Alex was outstanding!  You have changed and touched the lives of two people; we are forever thankful!

Andrea - your ability to bring a sense of calm to our hearts and minds during times of uncertainty was amazing!  You advocated for Alex and I in such a way that it restored our hope. You are such a wonderful lady. 

Bernice - what can I say about you!  You are amazing.  You answered my questions. You were encouraging.  You were a voice of reassurance.  You rock!

I will leave you with one final thought that sums up all that Alex and I are feeling:

Many beautiful things cannot be seen or touched, they are felt within the heart.

What you have done for me and my family is one of them.

And we thank you from the bottom of our hearts!

Wishing you all the best, both in life and in your practice!

Yours most sincerely,

Peter and Alex

Andrea Girones is a personal injury lawyer in Ottawa, visit her website at www.girones.ca

Did the Court of Appeal Clean up the Rule 53 Expert Mess?

As a  lawyer practicing in litigation for almost 20 years I have rarely been happier to see a Court of Appeal decision as I have  with the recent decision in Westerhof v. Gee Estate 2015ONCA 206. A simple  2010 rule change in our Civil Procedure book blew up to such a mess it took the Court of Appeal, and 5 years of hard fought battles to sort it out.

In 2010, a new and supposedly harmless form,  Form 53. the “Acknowledgement of Expert Duty” was introduced. Every expert who was to testify at trial had to acknowledge a duty to the Court to be independent. It was supposed to reduce the use of “hired gun” experts, and reduce trial time/costs by avoiding cases which turned solely on a  “battle of the experts”. Instead however, crafty lawyers  used the form to prevent experts from testifying in cases where  they wouldn’t , or couldn’t, sign the form.

Common law rules of evidence  and the Ontario Evidence Act make a clear distinction between fact and opinion evidence and there are longstanding rules about the admissibility of each. Opinion evidence could only come from  a qualified expert.  The bar to be an expert is low; there need only be a particular expertise or special knowledge that is beyond the knowledge of the finder of fact, Judge or Jury. Typically, and for decades, a medical doctor, rehabilitation nurse, or physiotherapist, with proper professional credentials would be able to  give “expert” opinions at trial.  Now they might need to also sign this form.

Typically  “hired guns” had no problem signing these forms, they were paid to do so. Treating medical doctors, such as surgeons, family practitioners, and physiotherapists would sometimes sign and sometimes not.  They were uncomfortable, they did not understand the forms, they wanted legal advice.  It became impossible for Plaintiff lawyers like myself, to convince a family doctor to sign the form.

Then at trial there were further battles about whether only hired guns had to sign form 53. Plaintiff lawyers would argue that a family doctor who has treated an injured party for 20 years did not need to sign this form before being allowed to testify.  Some Judges agreed, and others limited the family doctors to discussing the “facts” of their medical treatment. Sometimes doctors were hired in unrelated matters involving disability benefits. Were they also required so sign these forms? Again differing caselaw appeared. More court time was spent fighting over this issue,

What was intended to help the court process became a real mess for both defendants and plaintiffs particularly in the personal injury fields. Our trials tend to center around medical opinion evidence.

And long last the Court of Appeal has ruled that only hired gun” experts need sign the form. Back to the good old rules  surrounding opinion evidence that have worked for centuries.

Andrea Girones is a personal injury lawyer in Ottawa, visit her website at www.girones.ca

Surveillance Evidence In Personal Injury Cases Must Be Disclosed Before Trial

April 16^th, 2015

Recently  in Iannarella v. Corbett 2015 ONCA 110,  the Ontario Court of Appeal released an important decision regarding the disclosure of surveillance evidence in a personal injury trial.

Defence lawyers love to use surveillance videos at trial to show that accident victims are exaggerating, or even faking, their injuries. A good surveillance video can be devastating to a plaintiff at trial.

However, most cases with devastating surveillance never make it to trial and the plaintiffs facing such video may well settle for a lower amount long before trial. That is because the Rules of Procedure in Ontario require defence counsel to disclose surveillance particulars to injury victims well in advance of trial.

Our system does not allow “trial by ambush”. All significant pieces of evidence should be out in the open long before the trial so both parties are able to clearly address questions of, should we settle or should we try the case? Full and frank disclosure is critical to keeping our court system flowing, with only the really controversial cases using up courtroom time and space.

I’m not really sure how to explain how the lower court  Judge allowed into evidence, surveillance video that was never disclosed, nor vetted through a preliminary ruling on admissibility (voir dire). Suffice to say the Court of Appeal fixed that mistake and then went on to clearly set out the obligations of the parties for full and frank disclosure before trial.

All documents,  from all parties, must be disclosed in advance and the penalty of failing to comply should be to not allow such evidence to be presented to the jury. Hard to believe we needed the Court of Appeal to remind us of this.

Andrea Girones is a personal injury lawyer in Ottawa, visit her website at www.girones.ca

Free Legal Clinic in Pembroke Announced by Girones Lawyers April 27th, 2015

Girones Lawyers once again will be holding a free legal clinic in Pembroke on April 27^th, 2015. Andrea Girones will be meeting with clients and answering questions on a wide variety of personal injury and medical malpractice topics. 

Andrea has a particular expertise is assessing birth injury cases and cases where a traumatic delivery has permanently disabled a newborn. Birth injury cases or  other injuries to children, can be started as late as 20 years old as the limitation period does not begin to run until the minor child turn 18.

 If you have a legal question about a car accident, personal injury, medical malpractice case or a long term disability denial, please contact our office   on our toll free number at 1-866-701-5811 to book your free consultation.

Girones Lawyers represents personal injury  and medical malpractice victims throughout Northern and Eastern Ontario, including Ottawa and the Valley. We have a proven track record of multi-million dollar settlements for our client

Andrea Girones is a personal injury lawyer in Ottawa, visit her website at www.gironeslawyers.com

Chronic Pain After an Accident

Andrea Girones is a personal injury lawyer in Ottawa, visit her website at www.girones.ca

Has the Ontario Court of Appeal killed Rule 49 ?

As a general rule in Ontario  civil lawsuits, the loser pays the legal costs of the winning side. Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure deals with offers to settle which can reverse the standard “winner takes all” approach to costs. Typically if you offer to settle a case for $X dollars, which is rejected by your opponent, and you achieve a better result at trial, you can have your courts costs paid for from the date of the offer to the date of judgment.

At least that used to be the clear cut rule until the recent case of  Elbakhiet v. Palmer, a trial matter in Ottawa that went to the Court of Appeal on the issue of Rule 49 offers and the costs consequences. Without getting into the complex facts surrounding the offers and counter offer ( for that you should read the Judgment) the bottom line is the Trial Judge found that the plaintiff did better at trial than the defendant’s Rule 49 offer and awarded them  legal costs of $578,742.28 on a Judgment of $144,013.00. The defendant appealed.

 The Court of Appeal found that the defendant did not meet the burden of proving their offer to settle was lower (better) that the Plaintiff’s ultimate trial judgment due to some uncertainty in the calculation of pre-judgment interest.  Further the Court confirmed there is no “near miss” doctrine for offer that come close under Rule 49. Therefore the Defendants did not get reduced costs to pay under the Rule 49 procedure.

But then the Court of appeal went on to states that the Plaintiff’s costs should be reduced as the award was disporportianet to the award actually obtained at trial.  Just a breath after declaring that there was no “near miss’ legal principle, the Court of Appeal  still held that the defendant’s offer was made in accordance with “the spirit of Rule 49”.

The Court went on to reduce the Plaintiff’s cost award  to $100,000.00, using such clear cut, and precise legal terms, as “proportionality” , “discretion” and a “holistic” approach. 

I guess an offer to settle that’s “close enough” but not a reasonable and proper assessment of a claim, should be recommended to all injured parties. Otherwise the “Spirit of Rule 49” will visit in the night, haunting plaintiff’s counsel when faced with vague, unclear and “close to the mark” offers from stingy defendants.

Whereas Elbakhiet should have been about clarifying how to make a clear and precise Rule 49 offer, query whether the Court of Appeal has in face increased the uncertainly surrounding cost awards in a successful civil action.

Andrea Girones practices personal injury and medical malpractice law in Ottawa Ontario, you can lean more at her website   www.gironeslawyers.com

Protect Yourself - Collect Evidence at the Scene of a Collision

Andrea Girones is a personal injury lawyer in Ottawa, visit her website at www.girones.ca