Orlowski v. State Farm’s conclusion before Wisconsin’s highest court is a significant case with broad potential impact. The ruling will apply to the hundreds of underinsured motorist cases pending in Wisconsin, as well as—by implication—all uninsured motorist cases, according to Attorney Keith Stachowiak, of the law firm of Murphy & Prachthauser s.c., who represented the plaintiff. “This case put an end to a rule that permitted an insurance company to limit the amount it was required to pay to policy holders—under both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages in Wisconsin—for medical expenses policy holders incurred to treat their injuries,” said Stachowiak, the Milwaukee auto accident lawyer who authored the Wisconsin Supreme Court brief and made an oral argument before the court in late January 2012. Kevin Kukor and Josef Zimmerman of Murphy & Prachthauser also participated in the case.

The case represents a reaffirmation by the Wisconsin Supreme Court of an important principal of law known as the Collateral Source Rule. Traditionally, under the collateral source rule, a defendant couldn’t seek to reduce its liability by introducing evidence that the plaintiff had received compensation from other sources, such as the plaintiff’s own insurance coverage. This ensured that a person responsible for injuring someone in an auto accident could not get off the hook by claiming he didn’t have to pay the injured party’s medical expenses or lost wages because the injured person had health insurance or an employer continued to pay his wages when he missed work. The amount a negligent person owed would not be reduced because of payments made by the injured person’s health insurance or employer.

The Collateral Source Rule applied to all auto accident cases until 2001, when the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held in Heritage Mutual Insurance Co. v. Graser that it would no longer apply to uninsured and underinsured motorist claims. After that, insurance companies began agreeing in uninsured or underinsured motorist claims to compensate injured parties only for the amount their health insurance paid—not the amount their doctors charged.

The March ruling is long-overdue vindication for Orlowski, who was not satisfied with $11,498 in medical expenses previously awarded by an arbitration panel for damages resulting from an auto accident several years ago. The reasonable value of Orlowski’s medical services was $72,985, and her medical provider chose to write off/waive $61,487. Arbitrators decided to award Orlowski only the difference between the two amounts—$11,498. So Orlowski sued in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court for a modification of the award. Ultimately, the court sided with Orlowski and modified the award to include the written-off figure, which required State Farm to reimburse her for $61,487. State Farm appealed the decision, and the case was elevated to the state supreme court for resolution.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s unanimous March ruling is the final word on Orlowski’s right to receive the full reasonable value of the written-off medical expenses in her underinsured motorist case. It created a blanket directive that the Collateral Source Rule applies to an injured part’s underinsured motorist action. For more information, please visit www.murphyprachthauser.com or call Keith Stachowiak at 414-271-1011.

Sadly, it has also become known that a few chiropractic offices are contacting accident victims offering “free evaluations” or suggesting that an insurance company wants the chiropractor to evaluate their injuries. As we all know “free” seldom is free, and insurance companies do not ask doctors or chiropractors to contact patients.  If you are injured you should be seen in a hospital emergency room or urgent care center if needed. Otherwise, you should contact your family doctor.  Your doctor is in the best position to evaluate your injuries and direct you to the appropriate medical specialist, such as a physical therapist, orthopedic surgeon, chiropractor or neurologist. Receiving a call from a clinic that suggests or implies that they are acting at the request of the insurance company is a red flag to avoid that clinic.

Our personal injury lawyers offer legal services to women in the Milwaukee area who have been injured as a result of a transvaginal mesh or bladder sling procedure. We assist women with personal injury, medical, and pharmaceutical claims to secure representation for their transvaginal mesh lawsuits. As a part of a team of lawyers involved with multi-district litigation of medical and product liability cases, we help injured parties who have experienced complications and a decrease in quality of life as a result of a POP or SUI procedure to understand their legal rights and options.

Dangers Associated with Transvaginal Surgical Mesh

Surgical mesh has been in use since the 1950s as a way to repair hernias. In 1996, the FDA approved its use for POP, and in 2002, it was cleared for use in SUI. The mesh is made from a synthetic polypropylene, and it is placed inside the pelvis for POP or sub-urethral to support the urethra. Product names include Gynecare Prolift Anterior Pelvic Floor Repair System, Avaulta Plus BioSynthetic Support System, Gynecare TVT Secur, Align TO Trans-Obturator Urethral Support System. Manufacturers include Johnson & Johnson, its subsidiary Ethicon, and C.R. Bard.

POP occurs when there is weakening of the internal structures that support the pelvic organs, such as the bladder, uterus, and bowel. The support structures stretch, and organs can drop from their normal position and bulge, or prolapse, from the pelvic floor into the vaginal wall resulting in pelvic discomfort, disruption of sexual, urinary, or bowel functions, and an overall reduction in quality of life. SUI is a leakage of urine during moments of physical activity, such as coughing, sneezing, laughing, or exercise. Traditional urogynecologic procedures are recommended, such as reconstructive surgery using the patient’s own tissue for repair, as such procedures do not have the same risks associated with them.

Reported complications that arise as a result of the insertion of surgical mesh to repair POP and SUI include:

• Erosion (exposure or protrusion of surgical mesh through the vaginal tissue or epithelium)
• Pain
• Infection
• Bleeding
• Organ perforation
• Urinary problems (including incontinence)
• Need for additional surgeries or hospitalization to treat complications or remove the mesh
• Dyspareunia (discomfort during sexual intercourse)
• Recurrent prolapse
• Neuro-muscular problems
• Vaginal scarring / shrinkage
• Emotional problems
• Mesh contraction (shrinkage)

Treatment of these complications includes:

• IV therapy
• Blood transfusions
• Drainage of hematomas or abscesses
• Removal of the mesh
• Additional surgical procedures

Our Milwaukee transvaginal mesh lawyers are dedicated to helping women who have suffered as a result of a surgical mesh procedure to understand their legal rights and to procure assertive legal representation that zealously advocates for those rights.

There is currently a multi-district litigation in process against the manufacturers of Yaz, and our Milwaukee lawyers involved in Yaz lawsuits are seeking to help those who have been injured by taking the drug. Women in the Milwaukee area who have suffered side effects from taking Yaz, Yasmin, Ocella, or one of the other drospirenone-containing contraceptive pills are encouraged to contact us so we can help them get a Yaz attorney dedicated to advocating for their rights.

Yaz lawsuits are filed on behalf of women and their families who have suffered serious side effects as a result of taking the drug. Our Milwaukee Yaz lawyers help those who have been injured by the drug to recover for their:

• Medical expenses (hospital, surgical, and ambulance bills)
• Recovery costs and rehabilitation expenses
• Lost income (wages lost during injury)
• Reduced earning capacity
• Pain, suffering, and physical and emotional distress

We are dedicated to helping injured parties by offering intelligent and aggressive representation.

What to Look For: Dangers Associated with Yaz

The FDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is conducting an ongoing safety review of contraceptive pills that contain drospirenone, which are marketed as Yaz, Yasmin, Ocella, and other names. Several studies have shown an increase in the risk of blood clots for women who have taken these birth control pills. In addition to use as contraception, Yaz has been used to treat acne and symptoms of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), and to raise folate levels. It has not been approved for treatment of premenstrual syndrome (PMS), but in some cases, it has been prescribed for PMS.

Women who have been injured by Yaz have experienced one or more of the following side effects:

• Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)
• Pulmonary embolism (PE)
• Blood clots
• Stroke
• Heart attack or heart failure
• Brain damage
• Hyperkalemia, or elevated levels of potassium in the blood
• Cardiac arrhythmia
• Other cardiovascular complications
• Liver damage
• Hypertension
• Anaphylactic shock

The severe form of these side effects can be life-threatening, and they could lead to death. A woman experiencing these symptoms should contact her healthcare provider immediately.

Because of the severity of the risks involved, women who have taken Yaz should be aware of symptoms, which include:

• Persistent leg pain
• Severe chest pain
• Sudden shortness of breath
• Sudden blindness
• Sudden, severe headaches
• Weakness or numbness in an arm or leg
• Trouble speaking
• Yellowing of the skin or eyes

Health risks are increased for women who smoke or are 35 years of age or older. Other conditions that may increase health risk include kidney, liver, or adrenal disease, and patients with a history of blood clots, certain cancers, heart attack, or stroke. There have also been some reports of gallbladder disease associated with Yaz.

Other side effects include:

• Migrane
• Menstrual irregularities
• Nausea or vomiting
• Breast pain or tenderness
• Fatigue
• Irritability
• Decreased libido
• Weight gain
• Mood changes
• Stomach cramps
• Confusion
• Fainting spells
• Allergic reactions
• Hair loss

Oct 2011:  NBI Advanced Products Liability,  “Use of Demonstrative Evidence at Trial” and “How to make Science Understandable to a Judge and Jury”

Oct 2011: NBI Advanced Trial Techniques”,  “Use of Demonstrative Evidence at Trial–How to maximize Your Results”

Nov 2011: MBA “What Civil Court Judges Want You to Know”.  Mr. Llaurado was one of the moderator’s of a panel of three Milwaukee County Civil Court Judges discussing scheduling orders, pre-trial orders, use of depositions at trial, objections at trial, fundamentals of brief writing and motion practice.

I realized this had some potential for the legal profession. Jurors are accustomed to 20 second sound bites from things like the television news, and they want lawyers to get to the point and give them the information they need to decide the case. We are always looking for better communication skills, so why not give this a try?

At the 2011 Summer Seminar sponsored by the Wisconsin Association for Justice, I organized a group of four of our younger lawyers to give this a try. Two of the topics were quite technical, dealing with evidence problems and changes in insurance policies. Two of the topics were general, dealing with employment discrimination and the Family Medical Leave Act.  Each of the topics was followed by a three minute discussion session.

All the presentations went well, and I learned something significant in the process.  The format works better with the general topics, and not as well with the technical topics that deal with the language of a statute or an insurance policy. I also learned that it is important to have the presentation viewable to the presenter. In the future, I recommend either a display monitor on the podium, or a microphone that can be detached from the podium so the speaker can move around.  I also recommend that each slide, if it contains text, have short bullet points or a list, rather than the text of a statute or case.

This format forces a speaker to get to the point. It forces the speaker to streamline the presentation. And if it is a topic that is not of interest to you, the next topic will start in a short time period.

This format, or some variation of it, may be of assistance to lawyers in an opening statement to a jury in a simple case, or presentation of an argument to an arbitrator. Mediations or mock trials may also benefit from the format.  This format forces the speaker to fully prepare and organize the presentation, which can only help us get our point across.

The bills purport to adopt what is generally known as the Daubert rule, which has been the subject of a great deal of litigation in the federal courts since it was adopted there about 15 years ago. In cases we have in federal court, our experts’ testimony has never been restricted. But it can significantly drive up the costs of bringing cases to trial, further hindering injured victims’ access to the courtroom.

The rules of evidence, however, apply to all types of cases. They apply to business against business cases, to criminal cases, paternity cases, to essentially all types of court cases. The Wisconsin Court system compiles statistics on statewide case filings, showing that contracts and money judgments, typically business against business cases, or business against individual cases, outnumber personal injury case filings by more than 9 to 1. http://www.wicourts.gov/about/pubs/circuit/docs/civildispostate09.pdf

It is astounding to us that a proposed law that purports to help business, will actually make it more expensive for businesses to obtain redress when they are wronged.

Professor Daniel Blinka of Marquette University Law School, and the author of the definitive book on Wisconsin Evidence, addresses this proposed rules change in his blog:

“[W]hat public policy justifies the change? Will someone please point out the case law that illustrates the inadequacy of the current rule? I don’t see it. But I do foresee a great deal of litigation in the wake of these ill-starred revisions.”

Professor Blinka also points outs that while the proposed law may sound reasonable at first glance, it would actually create more confusion in addition to more expensive litigation. Read Professor Blinka’s blog here:

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2011/01/07/tort-reform-2011-true-science-or-pure-mischief/