No fault and bodily injury cases with causation
Download
1 / 38

no-fault and bodily injury cases with causation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 347 Views
  • Uploaded on

NO-FAULT AND BODILY INJURY CASES WITH CAUSATION . By Jeannie Provo-Petersen, Esq. St. Paul, Minnesota.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'no-fault and bodily injury cases with causation' - Thomas


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
No fault and bodily injury cases with causation l.jpg

NO-FAULT AND BODILY INJURY CASES WITH CAUSATION

By

Jeannie Provo-Petersen, Esq.

St. Paul, Minnesota


Causation in no fault tort cases l.jpg

Causation in no-fault cases requires "something less than proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury."Continental West. Ins. Co. v. Klug, 415 N.W.2d 876, 878 (Minn. 1987).

Causation in tort (BI) cases requires proximate cause.

CIVJIG 27.10 - a "direct cause" is a cause that had a substantial part in bringing about the injury.

In both types of cases, the focus is on whether the injuries were caused by a particular event.

Causation in No-Fault & Tort Cases

Is there a Difference?


Why focus on causation l.jpg

Why Focus on Causation? proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury."

  • Minn. Stat. §65B.42 - Pay costs allocated to motoring activities or injuries causally related to motoring.

  • Minn. Stat. §65B.43, Subd. 7 - "Loss" means economic detriment resulting from the accident causing the injury.

  • Minn. Stat. §65B.43, Subd. 11 - "Injury" means bodily harm to a person and death resulting from such harm.

  • Minn. Stat. §65B.44., Subd. 1 - . . .reimbursement for all loss suffered through injury arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle . . . .

    • (1) . . .for medical expense loss arising out of injury


Causation in no fault cases l.jpg
Causation in No-Fault Cases proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury."


Accident l.jpg

ACCIDENT?

VICTIM’S PERSPECTIVE


Medical expense benefits l.jpg

MEDICAL EXPENSE BENEFITS proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury."

  • REASONABLE

  • NECESSARY

  • DIRECTLYRELATED


Medical expense benefits7 l.jpg

MEDICAL EXPENSE BENEFITS proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury."

  • Once insurer receives reasonable proof of a claimant’s entitlement to benefits by presenting evidence of causation and necessity, the burden of proof shifts to the insurance company to produce evidence that claimant is not entitled to benefits.

  • Insurer’s burden is most often met with an IME.

BURDEN OF PROOF


No fault causation cases l.jpg

  • Rodgers v. Progressive proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury." (1993) - Court of Appeals

  • Great West v. Northland (1996) - Supreme Court

  • State Farm v. Zitzloff (1998) - Court of Appeals (unpublished).

  • Scheibel v. Illinois Farrmers(2000) - Supreme Court

  • Khawaja v. State Farm (2001) - Court of Appeals

  • Scheibel v. Illinois Farrmers (2001)- Supreme Court

  • Pususta v. State Farm (2001) - Supreme Court

No-Fault Causation Cases

Minnesota Courts Interpret “Directly Related”


Rodgers v progressive 499 n w 2d 61 minn ct app 1993 l.jpg

  • Apportionment proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury."appropriate between pre-existing conditions and new injuries.

  • Ongoing treatment for prior condition when new injury occurs.

  • Medical opinion that laid out apportionment.

  • No-fault carrier only responsible for percentage allocated to the accident in question (e.g. 50%/50%).

  • No-fault insurer for 2nd accident only pays for treatment related to 2nd accident.

Rodgers v. Progressive, 499 N.W.2d 61 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)

ALLOWED APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENSES


Great west v northland 548 n w 2d 279 minn 1996 l.jpg
Great West v. Northland proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury.",548 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 1996)

NOMORE APPORTIONMENT

  • No ongoing treatment when new injury occurs.

  • Subrogation between insurers.

  • Supreme Court holds only 1 accident can be the cause of injury for subrogation between insurers.

  • A return to the No-Fault Act — instead of requesting apportionment opinion or paying all expenses regardless of how caused, insurer determines and pays for treatment made necessary by the accident.

  • Supreme Court questioned apportioning causation like Rodgers, but did not over rule Rodgers.


Scheibel v illinois farmers i 615 n w 2d 34 minn 2000 l.jpg

  • Scheibel injured in 2 separate MVAs 2 months apart. proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury."

    • 1st MVA - 3/96 - injured neck.

    • 2nd MVA - 5/96 - aggravated neck; surgery required.

  • Farmers on risk for both MVAs.

    • Paid $3,588 for medical expenses from 1st MVA.

    • Paid $20,000 limits from 2nd MVA.

  • Scheibel filed arbitration to recover additional benefits trying to attribute back to 1st accident.

  • Need for treatment related to both MVAs

  • Farmers paid for all under 2nd MVA -Great West

Scheibel v. Illinois Farmers, (I)615 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. 2000)

Is Apportionment Back?


Scheibel v illinois farmers i 615 n w 2d 34 minn 200012 l.jpg

Scheibel v. Illinois Farmers proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury.", (I) 615 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. 2000)

Apportionment is back.

  • Arbitrator found expenses causally related to both MVAs (35% to 1st and 65% to 2nd).

  • After $20,000 exhausted from 2nd MVA, still had $6,953 in uncompensated medical expense.

  • Supreme Court holds:

    • When both MVAs contribute, 2nd MVA pays all, up to limits.

    • Return to 1st MVA if 2nd MVA limits are exhausted.

    • May only recover that unreimbursed portion of expense attributable to 1st MVA (e.g. 35%).

  • Reversed in part and remanded.


Scheibel v illinois farmers ii 631 n w 2d 428 minn ct app 2001 rev denied minn sept 25 2001 l.jpg

On remand, Court of Appeals holds: proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury."

Arbitrator’s findings of 35% 1st MVA, and 65% 2nd MVA are final and binding

Affirms decision of Dist. Ct., and gives “tacit approval of apportionment” in cases involving aggravation of pre-existing injury from prior accident.

Scheibel v. Illinois Farmers, (II)631 N.W.2d 428 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001), rev. denied, (Minn. Sept. 25, 2001)

Calculating Apportionment


Scheibel v illinois farmers ii 631 n w 2d 428 minn ct app 2001 rev denied minn sept 25 200114 l.jpg

District Court’s Method of Calculation: proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury."

$ 3,558 following 1st MVA

$20,000 following 2nd MVA

$ 6,953 uncompensated

$30,511 (total medical from both MVAs)

Dist. Ct. Took 35% of $30,511, or $10,678

Since Farmers already paid $3,558, it owed additional $7,120

Scheibel v. Illinois Farmers, (II)631 N.W.2d 428 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001), rev. denied, (Minn. Sept. 25, 2001)

Calculating Apportionment


Scheibel v illinois farmers ii 631 n w 2d 428 minn ct app 2001 rev denied minn sept 25 200115 l.jpg

Arguably inconsistent with Sup. Ct’s directive: proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury."

35% of uncompensated $6,953, or $2,433

Scheibel v. Illinois Farmers, (II)631 N.W.2d 428 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001), rev. denied, (Minn. Sept. 25, 2001)

Calculating Apportionment


Scheibel v illinois farmers ii 631 n w 2d 428 minn ct app 2001 rev denied minn sept 25 200116 l.jpg

Are calculations also wrong because they only make 1st MVA responsible for 35% of expenses incurred solely as result of 1st MVA.

Shouldn’t 1st MVA be responsible for:

$ 3,558 following 1st MVA

$ 9,433 following 2nd MVA (35% of $26,953)

$12,991 in total expense?

Scheibel v. Illinois Farmers, (II)631 N.W.2d 428 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001), rev. denied, (Minn. Sept. 25, 2001)

Calculating Apportionment


Khawaja v state farm 631 n w 2d 106 minn ct app 2001 rev denied minn sept 25 2001 l.jpg

2 MVAs responsible for 35% of expenses incurred solely as result of 1st MVA.

After settlement, insurer for 2nd MVA had paid total of $19,896.69 (policy limits not exhausted).

Khawaja brought claim against 1st MVA insurer under Scheibel.

State Farm denied, claiming Scheibel required claimant to exhaust all limits from 2nd MVA.

Khawaja v. State Farm, 631 N.W.2d 106 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001), rev. denied, (Minn. Sept. 25, 2001)

What Happens When 2nd MVA Settles

for Less than Policy Limits?


Khawaja v state farm 631 n w 2d 106 minn ct app 2001 rev denied minn sept 25 200118 l.jpg

Court of Appeals disagreed: responsible for 35% of expenses incurred solely as result of 1st MVA.

Scheibel does not require claimant to exhaust benefits from 2nd MVA.

But insurer for 1st MVA is responsible only for benefits over and above limits for insurer for 2nd MVA.

Claimant “eats the gap” of $103.31.

Khawaja v. State Farm, 631 N.W.2d 106 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001), rev. denied, (Minn. Sept. 25, 2001)

What Happens When 2nd MVA Settles

for Less than Policy Limits?


Pususta v state farm 632 n w 2d 549 minn 2001 l.jpg

1992 - horse accident with neck and back injuries. responsible for 35% of expenses incurred solely as result of 1st MVA.

1994 - chiro. tx. - health insurer only allows 24 visits/yr.

1997 - still treating with chiro. 1x/month.

Dec., 1997 - MVA, aggravated prior neck and back injuries, and increased chiro. tx.

IME - some injuries related to prior horse accident, so no-fault insurer pay for tx. only through Apr., 1998 -pre- accident status.

Pususta v. State Farm, 632 N.W.2d 549 (Minn. 2001)

Apportionment Between Prior

Non-MVA and MVA


Pususta v state farm 632 n w 2d 549 minn 200120 l.jpg

Arbitrator refused to apportion, applying responsible for 35% of expenses incurred solely as result of 1st MVA.Great West.

State Farm argues should not have to pay for 24 annual chiro. visits pre-MVA.

Dist. Ct. and Ct. of Appeals both affirm based on Great West.

Pususta v. State Farm, 632 N.W.2d 549 (Minn. 2001)

Apportionment Between Prior

Non-MVA and MVA


Pususta v state farm 632 n w 2d 549 minn 200121 l.jpg

Supreme Court reversed: responsible for 35% of expenses incurred solely as result of 1st MVA.

Distinguished Great West and Scheibel because they both dealt with multiple MVAs.

No-fault insurer should pay only for loss that arises out of maintenance or use of MVA.

A no-fault arbitrator must “only award those reasonable medical expenses for treatment of injuries caused by, or aggravated by, the automobile accident.” Id. at 556.

Pususta v. State Farm, 632 N.W.2d 549 (Minn. 2001)

Apportionment Between Prior

Non-MVA and MVA


Pususta v state farm 632 n w 2d 549 minn 200122 l.jpg

Arbitrator must determine whether expense relates to an “injury that was a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of a vehicle.”

If the expense is not for treatment solely related to the accident, it must be denied.

If the arbitrator does not think all expenses are causally related to the motor vehicle accident, but some are, it is appropriate for him to apportion those expenses as he sees fit.

Pususta v. State Farm, 632 N.W.2d 549 (Minn. 2001)

Apportionment Between Prior

Non-MVA and MVA


What does causation directly related now mean l.jpg
What Does Causation “injury that was a (Directly Related) Now Mean?

No-Fault Carriers Pay for Loss Directly Related

to the Subject Accident.

Isn’t that what the No-Fault Act has Always Said?


Causation in bodily injury cases l.jpg
Causation in Bodily Injury Cases “injury that was a


Pleading and proof l.jpg

Changes in Jury Instructions “injury that was a

CIVJIG 91.40

Does it improperly shift burden of proof?

Pleading and Proof

Aggravation of Pre-Existing Injuries


Jury instructions l.jpg

There is evidence that Plaintiff had a pre-existing disability or a medical condition at the time of the accident.

Defendant is liable only for any damages that you find to be directly caused by the accident.

If you cannot separate damages caused by the pre-existing disability or medical condition from those caused by the accident, then defendant is liable for all the damages.

Jury Instructions

4A Minnesota Practice, CIVJIG 91.40


Pre existing conditions l.jpg

If neither party’s theory of the case is aggravation, CIVJIG 91.40 should not be used.

P claimed his injuries and damages resulted solely from the car accident.

UIM insurer argued all injuries and damages were solely the result of P’s pre-existing condition, and did not argue the accident resulted in any aggravation of P’s underlying condition.

Pre-Existing Conditions

Morlock v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 650 N.W.2d 154 (Minn. 2002), rev'g. 632 N.W.2d 268 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)


Jury instructions28 l.jpg

A person who has a defect or disability at the time of an accident is nevertheless entitled to damages for any aggravation of such pre-existing condition, even though the particular results would have followed if the injured person had not been subject to such pre-existing condition. Damages are limited, however, to those results which are over and above those which normally followed from the pre-existing condition had there been no accident- in this case, had there been no second accident.

Jury Instructions

4A Minnesota Practice, CIVJIG 163


Pre existing conditions29 l.jpg

JIG 163 does not erroneously shift burden of proof to plaintiff. Generally, P in any civil case bears burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence.

If there is a pre-existing injury that is aggravated by the negligence of another, P still has the burden of proving not only the injuries directly caused by the defendant, but also proving the extent to which plaintiff's condition was caused by D’s conduct.

Pre-Existing Conditions

Heine v. Simon, 674 N.W.2d 411 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)


Pre existing conditions30 l.jpg

Recovery limited to additional injury caused by aggravation over and above pre-existing condition.

Damages for aggravation of a pre-existing condition are simply a means to assure that the defendant pays only for the harm the defendant causes, not the harm plaintiff already had.

Pre-Existing Conditions

Heine v. Simon, 674 N.W.2d 411 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)


Pre existing conditions31 l.jpg

If 2 or more persons through consecutive, independent acts of negligence closely related in time cause a single indivisible injury that is incapable of apportionment, the negligent actors are jointly and severally liable for damages.

Whether the single-indivisible-injury rule applies is a question of law.

To trigger joint and several liability under the single-indivisible-injury rule for damages, the injury must be incapable of being divided.

Pre-Existing Conditions

The Single-Indivisible-Injury Rule


Pre existing conditions32 l.jpg

CIVJIG 163 taken from 4 Minn. Prac. 163 properly follows Minnesota common law precedent and is the proper instruction to be given to the jury in cases where there is a pre-existing condition which defendant did not cause.

Blatz v. Allina Health Sys., 622 N.W.2d 376 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2001)

Burden of proof issues created by CIVJIG 91.40 impermissibly shifts burden of proof to defendant to show he did not cause the portion of plaintiff's damages attributable to the pre-existing condition.

Pre-Existing Conditions

Rowe v. Munye, 674 N.W.2d 761 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)


Direct cause l.jpg

A "direct cause" is a cause that had a substantial part in bringing about the injury.

DIRECT CAUSE

CIVJIG 27.10


Burden of proof l.jpg

Definition of "burden of proof" bringing about the injury.

A party asking for damages must prove the nature, extent, duration, and consequences of his or her injury.

You must not decide damages based on speculation or guess.

BURDEN OF PROOF

CIVJIG 90.15


Special verdict form l.jpg

What amount of money will fairly and adequately compensate plaintiff for damages directly caused by the accident, up to the time of this verdict, for:

a.Past pain, disability, and emotional distress?

b.Past wage loss?

c.Past health care expenses?

What amount of money will fairly and adequately compensate plaintiff for damages reasonably certain to occur in the future, directly caused by the accident, for:

a.Future pain, disability, and emotional distress?

b.Loss of future earning capacity?

c.Future health care expenses?

Special Verdict Form

CIVJIG 65.90


What evidence is needed l.jpg

Medical Records (pre and post accident) plaintiff for damages

7 yrs. for No-Fault Claims

Unlimited for BI Claims

Employment Records

Job descriptions, attendance records, FMLA requests, 1st reports of injury

Is work contributing to the problem (repetitive use, nonergonomic, work injuries, etc.)

Other Claims

Work. Comp., disability, other insurance

What Evidence is Needed?

Issues of Causation Require Proof


Use of an ime l.jpg

Provide the IME doctor with all relevant information. plaintiff for damages

Provide the IME doctor will all necessary records to render an accurate opinion on causation.

Provide pre and post accident records.

Provide pre and post accident diagnostics.

Provide other relevant records/information, such as job descriptions, other claims, prior history.

Provide photographs/damage estimates.

Use of an IME

Arm Your Doctor with Causation Proof


No fault and bodily injury cases with causation38 l.jpg

NO-FAULT AND BODILY INJURY CASES WITH CAUSATION plaintiff for damages

By

Jeannie Provo-Petersen, Esq.

St. Paul, Minnesota


ad