Alaska Injury Law Blog

A common problem an attorney has is how to be certain their client is receiving proper medical care. The attorney can collaborate with the client to be sure that the proper diagnostic steps are being taken. This not only helps further a client’s case, but it also helps the client return to function. It is often the case that a better diagnosis can be obtained depending on what type of films are taken. A current debate is whether the MRI or arthroscophy is preferable in diagnosing a knee injury. Both have shown good diagnostic performance in detecting lesions of the menisci and cruciate ligaments. Nonetheless, arthroscopy has remained the “gold standard”.

The British Medical Bulletin recently published an article examining this question. As might be expected, the answer was, “well, it depends”. The results of the study were that MRI was deemed “highly accurate ” in diagnosing meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. Because its use avoids the risk of surgery, it is “the most appropriate screening tool” before arthroscophy is performed. The results differed, however, depending on whether the medial and lateral meniscus and ACL were being examined.

British Medical Bulletin 2007 84(1):5-23.

A Missouri appeals court Tuesday upheld an $8 million punitive damages judgment imposed against State Farm Insurance. The case involved a lawsuit filed by two insureds who held an auto insurance policy with State Farm. The insureds accused State Farm of malicious prosecution and breach of contract.

As is common, the insurer was able to frustrate resolution of the claim for years. The case began over 10 years ago when the insureds reported the theft of a Toyota 4Runner, which was later found abandoned and burned in Miami County, Kan. State Farm declined to pay the $10,000 claim and, working through an industry investigative service, referred the case to Johnson County prosecutors, who charged Hampton and Vail with insurance fraud. This technique of getting the authorities to bring fraud charges is commonly used by insurers as a technique to intimidate insureds into abandoning even legitimate claims made against their policies.

After a jury acquitted the insureds of any wrongdoing in 2001, they filed the civil action against State Farm. In September 2005, the civil jury awarded them each $400,000. Later that year, a judge adjusted those amounts to $250,000 because of a statutory cap, and he also assessed the punitive awards.

Alaska Injury Law Blog

MRI vs. Arthroscopy for Meniscal and ACL Tears?

Punitive Damages Award Upheld Against State Farm