08202017Headline:

Minneapolis, Minnesota

HomeMinnesotaMinneapolis

Email Mike Bryant Mike Bryant on LinkedIn Mike Bryant on Twitter Mike Bryant on Facebook Mike Bryant on Avvo
Mike Bryant
Mike Bryant
Attorney • (800) 770-7008

Legal Personal Injury Myth of the Day: Overall

43 comments

During the month of August, I have been addressing myths that we hear from clients throughout their cases. Kind of my own legal myth busters. Here is all of the myth together:

I only have liability:

In Minnesota, if you have automobile insurance then you have no fault coverage. This is coverage that will pay for medical bills, medical mileage, wage loss, and replacement services. It is the best reason why a legal consultation can at least explain to you what coverages you have.

A No Fault claim will raise my insurance rates:

The use of your no fault for coverage doesn’t raise your rates. That only will happen if there is a liability payment and you are found more than 45% at fault.

I can’t use my No Fault coverage if I am at fault:

That goes against the very nature of no fault. It doesn’t matter how the automobile collision happened. If it involved an automobile in use or maintenance and the claim is reasonable, necessary, and related, the bill should be paid.

Everyone is at least a little at fault:

This is the greatest insurance story out there. They on the one hand fight the liability of the person responsible to the very end, and at the same time get people to accept that they are 10-25% at fault for just being there. The law has no such requirement. It is simply a tool for insurance companies to taint juries and to reduce property damage payments.

I have to have money to pay the lawyer:

In personal injury cases, we get paid out of what is recovered, which means there is no upfront payment. We will also pay for the initial costs that are involved in bringing the claim. This puts you on even footing with the insurance companies that already have investigators and are getting medical records. If nothing else, the initial consultation is free and is at least a chance to understand your rights.

I will do better if I take the insurance company’s offer: There could be cases where they are offering you what the cases justifies, but in most cases they are taking advantage of your not being represented and taking into consideration what you would have paid a lawyer and the costs involved. X Research suggests that unrepresented people get about half to a third in their pocket of what they would have received if they would have been properly represented.

I will have to go to trial:

Most cases settle. Even among the cases that get put in suit, those will settle before they go to trial. We as a firm are regularly in trials and we sue cases out with the belief that they can be tried. However, for you the only reason that you go to trial is that the insurance company didn’t offer enough. You always have the final decision on what to do with the case.

It is mean or wrong to bring a claim:

The insurance company makes a lot of money of this one. See, on the one hand they sell a bunch of insurance by convincing everyone that they need the coverage because they may be sued at any moment. At the same time, they feed off the negatives of suing by tainting the juries and reducing the number of claims.X They profit on both ends. A person making a claim is simply trying to get back what they lost, replace what needs to be replaced, and getting their balance back.

It doesn’t matter who you hire for a lawyer:

Like anything else, it’s a job and there are lawyers who do this type of work and those who dabble. There are some who try cases and those who never go to court. There are those who have the resources to spend the money and time needed and those who don’t. There are those with the staff to make sure you get the attention you need and those who don’t.

I should pick my lawyer from the phonebook or a billboard:

That might work, but ask around and see who your friends and family know. If you know a lawyer who doesn’t do this kind of work, you can ask them who they recommend. Or spend some time doing research on the internet. There is a lot of information out there about what we do and who we are.

I need to use my health insurance:

In a Minnesota motor vehicle collision, the primary coverage is No fault unless it’s a worker’s compensation claim, which means that your car insurance pays for your medical bills. There is no need for a referral, there is no managed care, and you get to choose the type of care that you get. It is coverage that you have if you are injured in a car collision in Minnesota.

These questions are not intended to replace a consultation with an attorney, nor do they take into consideration facts that may differ about your particular case. Here at the Legal Examiner, we have experienced attorneys who can deal with your individual questions and best help you with your case. Feel free to get the help you need by contacting one of us.

43 Comments

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  1. jc says:
    up arrow

    I would like to add to Mike Bryant’s legal myths and discuss them in subsequent posts. Myth 1: Malpractice attorneys are solely interested in the rights of the patient. Myth 2: Malpractice attorneys win a high percentage of cases that they bring to trial. Myth 3: Only the malpractice insurance company is harmed if you bring a questionable malpractice case. Myth 4: If it is a bad result, it must be because the doctor messed up.

  2. jc says:
    up arrow

    Myth 1: Malpractice attorneys are solely interested in the rights of the patient. Yeh, right! Lets say your respond to a lawyer add because you had your leg amputated and now cannot work. Right away Mike Bryant is going to charge you a contingency fee of 40%. Plus, all the court costs are going to come out of the eventual settlement. These court costs add up fast. There are filing fees, expert witness fees, deposition and transcription fees by court reporters who are expensive typists. No only are there doctor expert witness fees, but there are economists and lifestyle planners, who all demand rich fees. So after 4-5 years of litigation, Mike finally wins for you. Typically, Mike gets 55-60% of any settlement off the top- – his 40% contingency plus legal expenses. So if Mike wins a couple million dollar cases in a year, Mike is sitting pretty. Now neither Mike nor any other plaintiff attorney is going to talk about how well paying malpractice litigation is for them. In order to sell this, they have to talk about the “rights of the patient”. But you get the picture.

  3. jc says:
    up arrow

    Myth 2: Malpractice attorneys win a high percentage of cases that they bring against doctors. Nationwide, plaintiff attorneys lose 80% of the malpractice cases that go to trial! You baby son has a better chance of winning a coin flipping contest then a plaintiff’s attorney has of winning a malpractice case. The failure rate (80%) is unique No other American Industry has such a high failure rate. Would you fly an airline that crashed and burned 80% of the time?

  4. jc says:
    up arrow

    Myth #3: Only the malpractice company is harmed if you bring a questionable malpractice case. You will have to endure legal hell as you go thru this case and so will the doctor that you are suing. You will have to produce income tax returns and medical bills and go thru a deposition and testify in court. Your doctor will have to spend hours defending himself in this case. Since your doctor has been sued he will have a permanent mark against his record forever regardless of whether he wins or loses. This will effect his malpractice premiums which will go up and it could prevent him from getting hospital staff privileges. Because a monitary settlement is reported to the national practicioner’s data bank, you can expect your doctor to fight like hell to prevent any report from being sent to the NPDB, so be prepared for a long fight in court.

  5. jc says:
    up arrow

    Myth #4: If it is a bad result it must be because the doctor messed up. No one has left planet earth alive. The vast majority of bad results are because of natural progression of the patient’s disease. Poor patient compliance are the next most common cause of a bad result. It is relatively rare for a medical mistake to cause a bad result.

  6. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    Dr Cox decided to move over to this blog (he likes to follow the writers here around and often says the same stuff over and over). I was in a mediation Friday and ran the Warrior Dash yesterday so I wasn’t able to get back here, until today. After reading his usual lines I decided that it’s probably worth using each for a blog , because they are so full of the usual insurance playbook and Dr Cox’s own fantasy world. So stay tuned.

  7. jc says:
    up arrow

    Yes Mike, we should debate these points and openly discuss you own biases and the propaganda perpetuated by the American Trial Lawyers Association. P.S. Were you doing the Warrior Dash so you could practice up chasing ambulances?

  8. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    Dr Cox: Since I regularly point out that you hide from the family of the person you hurt ( or did you kill him) I understand your need to strike out at me instead of writing the family and doing the correct thing.

    Openly? You hide behind initials and only after enough of your comments have we figured out that you are Dr Cox, you hurt a person and lied to the family, you have something to do with consulting for a clinic, and you like to rant after having a few.

    I will wait until the future blogs to deal with the rest of your gibberish. Have another on me tonight.

  9. jc says:
    up arrow

    Mike, I have an idea for you. Instead of running in the Warrior Dash, maybe you should start your own marathon. You could call it the Ambulance Chaser’s Marathon and give the proceeds to your favorite judicial candidate.

  10. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    What a odd idea. But I could see how you would come up with that kind of event vs something that helps St Jude’s Children Research Hospital. What a sad and angry suggestion.

  11. jc says:
    up arrow

    Here is another way the judges and plaintiff attorneys screw up. Lets say that the plaintiff attorney gets to the point in a case where it is obvious to everyone that there is no case of medical malpractice. What happens then! A reputable plaintiff’s attorney would drop the case. Unfortunately very few of them exist. Sooo, our plaintiff’s attorney who has bucks tied up in the case goes for the old stalling tactic. In a case against a colleague of mine where there was a typographical mistake which had no berring on the clients outcome, the plaintiff attorney asked for $200K and proceeded to drag the case out for 6 years before it was thrown out of court. Ofcourse the Judge would not allow the doctor to countersue to a bad faith malpractice suit. A few of my colleagues are thinking of getting together and getting an initiative in Ohio so that we could countersue plaintiff attorneys for bad faith malpractice claims.

  12. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    Must be Miller Time Dr Cox:

    OH I have this friend and he says that…… blah troll blah troll. There really is no point to your drivel.
    Let’s see:
    The case got thrown out so the judge followed the law.

    You write like this is a common example and it isn’t.

    Back to your “I want to sue someone” ideas, that cracks me up, because it’s contrary to your usual garbage about taking away the consumers right to sue.

  13. jc says:
    up arrow

    Mike- -you should get out more. This frivolous lawsuit is a very common example. There is no training for plaintiff attorneys and so they frequently file frivolous lawsuits and I see this all the time and that is why plaintiff attorneys lose 80% of the time at trial. This is why I think doctors should be allowed to countersue plaintiff attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits because the Bar association is sure not policing the situation.

  14. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    Frequently? Even your crazy numbers are in the very low hundreds. There is nothing even remotely correct in that comment.
    And there we go again, “I want to sue someone”. The hypocrisy of Dr Cox.

  15. jc says:
    up arrow

    Actually, I think this shows the hypocrisy of Mike Bryant. With an 80% plaintiff attorney failure rate at trial obviously showing that frivolous malpractice litigation exists, Mike Bryant does not want to allow doctors to countersue plaintiff attorneys for frivolous litigation. Mike says that the numbers are low. The numbers of wrong leg amputations are rare but Mike would be the first lawyer to file a malpractice suit for a wrong limb amputation. So why shouldn’t doctors have the right to countersue a plaintiff attorney who will fully pursues a malpractice case which he knows will fail so that he can drag it out and try and extort money from the docs insurance company. The hypocrisy is that Mike wants to sue doctors but doctors should not be allowed to countersue because plaintiff attorneys are above the rest of us mortals and should be treated differently.

  16. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    So you don’t don’t think there should be a lawsuit for a wrong leg being cut off?

    I guess the doctor could try to hide it from the family like you did.

  17. jc says:
    up arrow

    Mike you are answering a question out of context. Yes, docs should be sued for wrong leg amputation and plaintiff attorneys should be subject to getting sued for frivolous litigation. Apparently, you do not want to see any legal liability for frivolous litigation.

  18. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    You don’t read what you rant. There should be no question that a wrong leg amputation is a a case. But you want Texas Caps and shielding of responsibility. Or to hide it like you did.

  19. jc says:
    up arrow

    Mike, you don’t read what you rant. You want everyone else to accept responsibility for their actions except plaintiff attorneys. Why shouldn’t plaintiff attorneys be held responsible if they file frivolous malpractice litigation and clog up the courts and lose 80% of the time.

  20. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    You lied to the family. How did you take responsibility Dr Cox? You suggested that a wrong leg surgery was some how a crazy plaintiff attack. There is no way around that. You have no grounds to talk responsibility. Continue to shake your fist all you want. Try not to spill.

  21. jc says:
    up arrow

    Another Mike Bryant rant – -so far off base he doesn’t know what he is talking about. I say that plaintiff attorneys who file frivolous malpractice suits should be held legally accountable. Obviously Mike Bryant has no answer to this simple proposition because he knows in his heart that it is a fair idea. So he makes up things about me and puts words in my mouth.

  22. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    You told us about what you did or I guess it is better to say didn’t do for that family.

    No the idea is dumb. You have been told that many times. No need to go over old rants of yours.

    Did you spill?

  23. jc says:
    up arrow

    Boy I will tell you Mike, you plaintiff attorneys must be big boozers, seems like all you can talk about is Miller time and drinking and your posts get more incoherent as the night wears on. No wonder it takes lawyers and courts so long to decide simple cases.

  24. jc says:
    up arrow

    Alcoholics frequently have to yawn a lot.

  25. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    OK, apparently you are an expert there.

  26. jc says:
    up arrow

    Myth #5: If your attorney wins the malpractice case, you get a check. Not all the time. It happens that the attorney fees and expert witness fees and court costs and transcription costs, can eat up all the judgement. So if you were asking for $1.5 million and went thru a full jury trial and were awarded $100K, the costs of litigation could well add up to $110K and the patient would get no money at all. In this case, technically, the plaintiff attorney could send a bill to the patient for $10K. Remember those lawyer commercials where the lawyer says, you don’t pay unless we win. Well, in this $100K example case, the patient “won” and technically could be forced to pay $10,000.00. Have you ever done that Mike, where you bill a patient a legal fee or court cost after winning a case?

  27. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    That is the dumbest example I gave ever seen. Nope never happened with me or anyone I know.

  28. jc says:
    up arrow

    I have seen that malpractice senerio play out, where the costs of bringing the case are greater than the case recovery.

  29. jc says:
    up arrow

    Mike: Most of the malpractice cases which reach court are found in favor of the defendant doctor. Often the plaintiff gets less than he wants. So what happens if the judgement is for $100,000 and the plaintiff attorney court and expert witness costs are $110,000. Does the patient walk out of court with a bill or does the patient get any money from the award at all? I know that situation has had to have happened in your community – -what do you and other plaintiff attorneys do?

  30. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    It is such a dumb example that it is tough to answer. If we lose I lose the costs and don’t get paid. That is why taking cases that will all be eaten up in expert costs no sense. It’s why the whole frivolous lawsuit explosion makes no sense.

    The experts get paid, the defense attorney gets paid, the insurance company gets paid, even the doctor gets paid for the work at question, we only get paid and get our cost back if we recover for the plaintiff.

    Your phony numbers aside, the reality you are trying to present simply doesn’t exist.

    So did you get paid for the family you lied to?

  31. jc says:
    up arrow

    Earth to Mike Bryant, earth to Bryant, are you there Bryant? Sometimes Mike, I think you are out there on another planet. The contention that frivolous litigation does not exist is out of this world. I carefully detailed to you with statistics that 80% of malpractice cases that went to court were won by the defendant doctor. That 80% plaintiff attorney failure rate is unmatched anywhere in American Industry. Now with 80% of the cases failing at trial, there have to be a lot of frivolous cases out there. By Mike Bryant’s own admission it makes no economic sense to pursue these cases. So why do plaintiff attorneys file these frivolous cases in the first place? Maybe they are all floating around on different planets like Mike Bryant.

  32. jc says:
    up arrow

    In a Justice Department study, using data collected on 43,000 closed cases between 2000 & 2004 from Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, and Texas (all of which are required by state law to submit information on closed malpractice claims) found that MOST PLAINTIFF WON CLAIMS CLOSED WITH NO COMPENSATION TO THE CLAIMANT AT ALL! What this study means is that just because Mike Bryant won a malpractice case for you doesn’t necessarily mean that you will get some money.

  33. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    OK- let’s look at your latest made up situation:

    -Those wouldn’t be “won” cases. So I doubt your made up study says that.
    – The real numbers don’t support your 43,000 figure for lawsuits anywhere. 5 states in four years would be closer to half or a 1/4 of that number.

    Now, if you are just mean claims and you are calling those all wins, meaning that the plaintiff was proven to be injured and there was malpractice in each of those cases, then it seems that justice would suggest a different solution.

    But you aren’t about protecting the consumer. You lied to them and hid like you do here Dr Cox.

    Misquote, abuse statistics, and lie: that is your MO.

    as for the planet comment, again misquote and say drunken things. Sad that it was in the afternoon.

  34. jc says:
    up arrow

    Mike you must work part time for the Obama campaign. That must be where you picked up your smear tactics. I was simply quoting a Justice Department study which reviewed 43K cases over 4 years and found that most of the time when the plaintiff’s attorney “won” the patient himself got nothing. This sounds logical to me, as legal costs are so high that you have to reach a certian dollar threshold to break even with court costs. If that threshold is not reached how can the client get any money back? According to the Justice Department, that is a frequent occurrence.

  35. jc says:
    up arrow

    Well Mike, I believe that the 43K cases were all cases tried in a 4 year period in those states. As we know, 80% of the time the defendant doctor wins at trial so in only 20% of cases does the plaintiff attorney win. So in those 43K cases only 8600 were plaintiff wins. According to the Justice Department, most of the time, when the plaintiff attorney wins, they get no money because of “court costs”. So that would mean that in less than half of the plaintiff “victories” did the plaintiff get any money. So out of those 43K cases that went to trial, the patient got a check only 2300 times. That all sounds like the real world to me and that is about what I see out here in fly over country. Heck, Mike, if plaintiff attorneys only produce money for the client 1 out of 10 times the case goes to trial, you should do us all a favor and stop litigating these cases and stay home and write on this blog.

  36. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    If they won they won. You can’t then say they lost 80%. The more you talk the more you chase your tail.

    When you add your faerie tale numbers you don’t make them mean anything more.

    No idea what you are attacking our President for. Although that preexisting condition might matter to you someday.

    Cheers.

  37. jc says:
    up arrow

    So let me explain it to you very carefully. Docs win 80% of malpractice cases that go to court. Plaintiff lawyers win 20% of malpractice cases that go to court. According to the US Dept. of Justice, of the 20% of malpractice cases that plaintiff attorneys win, most of those cases result in NO PAYMENT TO THE INJURED PATIENT. In other words,at most only 10% of malpractice cases that go to trial result in a payment to the patient. This low percentage explains why plaintiff attorneys are vilified by the American Public.

  38. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    You are using two fake numbers, running them together and saying that you have some great conclusion. No you got bad stew.

    Funny that you of all people would say that is why we are vilified. No you don’t like us because we hold you responsible. Maybe someone will uncover the lie you told that family.

    But, if a person were to jump into the sauce with you, wouldn’t they say ” let’s wait a while and that economic plan will go bankrupt?”

    Cheers

  39. jc says:
    up arrow

    So that is your argument! You don’t like the Justice Department numbers so they are lying. You do not like court statistics that I gave you from Pennsylvania so I am lying. When 9 out of 10 plaintiffs receive no money after going to trial because the plaintiff attorney screws up it is the doctors fault? Talk about not taking responsibility, you plaintiff attorneys take the cake! Tell me Mike, do you lie to your clients and tell them you are going to win a lot of money for them when you sue the doctor and take him to trial. Or do you tell them the real numbers, that they only have a 10% chance of getting any money at trial.

  40. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    I tell them the truth. The truth isn’t anything like you rant about.

    Did you tell that family yet?

    Back up and look at your first post about the “federal” report. The use of the word “wins” doesn’t make a bit of sense. Your conclusion is ridiculous.

    Have another.

  41. jc says:
    up arrow

    Mike, it was an independant study and concluded that frequently, even after a “win” the plaintiff got no money. A friend of mine went thru a malpractice trial and the verdict against him was $120,000. Court costs were 100K and ofcourse the plaintiff’s attorney wanted his 40% cut ($48K). So after the court costs of 100K to prosecute the case and the attorney contingency fee of $48K, the poor patient was left with NOTHIHG! Aint our current justice system great! The party that is injured gets NOTHING and the plaintiff attorney walks away with all the award money. What a scam!
    This is why plaintiff attorneys are vilified. This and the 80% trial loss cases are what I see on the ground, all the rest is Mike Byrant drunken propaganda. By the way, Mike, what is the contingency fee that you charge the suckers – -do you go for 40% or do you hit them with 50% and try and gorge on the whole award? Legalized extortion!

  42. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    As I have said many times that isn’t a win. Your math is a joke. Your use if derogatory words for the patient and consumer explains your contempt for responsibility.