A 68-year-old female ("Mrs. X") underwent an abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer on January 11, 2005. She was discharged home five days after the surgery. After getting home, she experienced nausea and vomiting and was unable to keep anything down other than ice chips. On January 18, 2005, Mrs. X returned to the hospital where her surgery had been completed. She was re-admitted and underwent an exploratory surgery in an attempt to determine the cause of her nausea and vomiting. The surgery revealed a retained surgical sponge from the January 11, 2005, surgery. Mrs. X was hospitalized for nine days following the second surgery. Mrs. X required in-home health care after discharge. The defendant hospital contested whether any of Mrs. X's complications after the second surgery were the result of the retained sponge or simply resultant from the original cancer surgery. The case was settled for $50,000 and, in addition, the hospital paid all of Mrs. X's medical expenses associated with the second surgery and all care that occurred after January 18, 2005.
A 17-year-old male and his mother sought our help in a dental malpractice case involving the delay in diagnosis and treatment of impacted teeth. The young man had received dental care from the same dentist for several years. It was not until he changed dentists, in 2005, that his condition was diagnosed and treated. In reviewing past x-rays, it was determined that as early as 2002, his prior dentist should have seen that the young man had impacted teeth. Diagnosis at that time would have allowed for a referral to a specialist for treatment. Due to the delay in care, the young man developed cysts around the impacted teeth. The cysts that developed caused a significant thinning of the mandible. Ultimately, after the impacted teeth were diagnosed, the young man was referred to an oral surgeon. Surgery was completed. Following surgery, the young man had a significantly restricted diet. In meetings with the treating oral surgeon, it was determined that while earlier diagnosis should have been made, the treatment that the young man received was substantially similar to what he ultimately received. While that was the case, we were able to secure a settlement of $20,000 and the provider agreed to pay all of the young man's dental expenses associated with the surgery and subsequent treatment. The total amount paid, including medical expenses, was over $30,000.
A 52-year-old female was involved in a motor vehicle collision on August 11, 2005. She was a back-seat passenger in a car driven by her daughter. Her daughter was deemed the at-fault party. The involved insurance carriers contended that the impact from the collision, which was termed a "side swipe" collision, was minimal and that there was no way that injuries could have been suffered in the collision. The insurer took the position that it would not pay anything in the case. The involved insurer had both no-fault and liability insurance coverage. Ultimately, after no-fault arbitration, the insurer settled the liability claim for $15,000. Including no-fault benefits, the insurer paid out over $35,000 to compensate our client for her injuries.
A 49-year-old female was involved in a head-on collision on December 16, 2004. The other party was deemed at fault. The client suffered multiple injuries in the collision, the most severe injury being a high heel fracture. The client underwent multiple surgeries on the right heel. She returned to her regular full-time employment and was also able to resume her part-time job. Since she resumed most of her normal activities within a short time after the collision, the involved insurers resisted adequately compensating her. After obtaining reports from the involved treating physicians, serving a lawsuit and undertaking extensive negotiations, the insurers agreed to pay the client the policy limits of $200,000 to resolve her claim.
A 49-year-old man sustained a fractured left wrist on January 20, 2002, when he slipped and fell on ice. The fracture required surgical intervention, but healed nicely. The involved defendant and its insurance company contested liability and claimed that the fall was caused by our client's failure to maintain a proper lookout and that they properly salted/sanded the area where the client fell. After obtaining witness statements and weather reports, we were able to achieve a settlement of $85,000 for the injured client.
If you have been injured, do not accept any payment or sign anything for the insurance company until you have had an independent attorney review your case free of charge.
3085 Justice Way, Suite 200
Eagan, MN, 55121
3085 Justice Way #200, Eagan, MN 55121