If you are involved in a collision, you should remember a few simple things to do:

First, after the collision, move you car off the road to safety. You should not be walking around on the road in traffic.

If someone is injured, call the police or the highway patrol.

Exchange information with the other people involved. Try to get the following information: License plate numbers; make and model of each car; driver’ s license numbers; insurance identification, including name of insurance company, broker or agent, and policy number; names, addresses and phone numbers of witnesses and names and badge numbers of police officers or other emergency personnel.

Take some notes at the scene of how the collision happened. If you have a camera take some pictures of the area where the collision occurred, the damage to the cars, and the people who were involved.

A case just settled where a restaurant agreed to pay for injuries caused from a drunk driver, who was served too much alcohol. The attorneys argued that the restaurant sold alcohol to the patron when they should have known she was already drunk. After getting drunk in the restaurant, the patron got in her car and ran head-on into on-coming traffic killing an innocent person driving the other direction.

Although the drunk driver was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison, the settlement helps to provide compensation to the family that was otherwise not available.

It was because of a careful and tenacious lawyer that the family got some justice, and restaurants were sent a clear signal about their responsibilities.

The insurance company set goals for cancellation on policies and paid bonuses to employees based on how many policies the dropped and how much money that saved the company. The penalties help shed light on the way insurance companies work. While they spend millions of dollars on commercials to make people think their goal is to help, these types of incidents show how insurance companies really work. Unfortunately, trusting your insurance company may be a mistake.

The fine came after the company mislead state investigators about bonuses paid to employees on more than one occasion. The fines resulted from the insurance company not be straight forward in response to the investigation. As we have found to be the case on many occasions with insurance companies, what they tell you they are going to do, does not always match what they actually do.

Basically, when a Health Net insurance employee found people who were sick, and made large claims and cancelled them, Health Net rewarded them. Health Net was able to find the people that needed protection the most, and hurt them. In one case, Health Net left an insured stuck with nearly $200,000 in medical bills.

As insurance companies always have an excuse for their conduct, Health Net claimed that the cancellations were necessary root out fraud and keep premiums down. It appears that it did so by committing fraud.

The fine is one of the largest in the history of the Department of Managed Care.

When doctor's negligence, when their mistakes hurt people, the 1975 MICRA law, prevents patients from obtaining justice. The law limits recovery for pain and suffering to $250,000. When first passed, it preventing patients from recovering full compensation for their injuries.

Now, 30 years later, as costs of litigation have gone up but the $250,000 has not changed. As a result, people injured by doctors errors are finding that they often cannot get a lawyer to take their case.

The article published last Sunday indicates that the family is suing for $45 million dollars, but does not mention that their recovery will be limited to $250,000. In response, Linda Rice sent a letter to the Los Angeles Times correcting the error. That letter was published on November 11, 2007.

As printed in the Times, Linda wrote: "A jury might think $45 million is fair and just compensation to the family of the woman who died while hospital personnel ignored her cries of pain for nearly an hour. But the judge will automatically reduce any possible verdict to $250,000 -- the most in noneconomic damages anyone can recover for any injury or death caused by a healthcare provider. The cap was passed at the behest of the insurance industry and medical establishment more than three decades ago. Because it has never been changed or adjusted -- even for inflation -- we may be reaching a point at which letting patients die is more cost-effective than treating them. The public needs to understand this. This article promotes the misconception that people who sue doctors end up rich. That isn't possible in California."

Unfortunately, this type of medical malpractice is universal and does occur in Los Angeles area hospitals as well. Although California does not have a similar law, almost anytime a medical malpractice case settles, the settlement includes a confidentiality clause to prevent the patient from telling anyone about the doctor or hospital's negligence.

As a result, in California, Washington, and other states, patients do not have access to information that could be of great assistance in choosing a hospital or a doctor.

While there is an effort to change this damaging Washington law, Californians have no way to escape the confidentiality which accompanies most settlements. There was a recent effort to make it illegal to make a settlement confidential, but such reform efforts were quickly silenced.

Insurance companies will be quick to pay for a coat of paint, but often will not do the necessary investigation to search for all of the damage a fire can cause. Especially where a home is left standing, smoke damage is often not detectable to the average person. While some people will simple settle with their insurance company for the damage which is easy to see, with the assistance of an attorney or other trained professional, a homeowner can obtain the comensation they are entiteled to receive.

It is estimated that the loss from the October fires will be about $1 billions dollars. While this may seem like a huge loss to the insurance industry, when compared to the $450 billion in policy sales last year, and the record $65 billion in profits, the loss if fairly minimal.

Many families suffered huge financial and emotional losses over the past week. They should not have to haggle with the insurance companies to obtain the compensation they paid for over the years with their premiums.

Many people use these pads to protect babies from injury. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commision date found that many infants lack the motor development to free themselves when they become wedged between the bumper pad and the surface. Babies are likely to suffocate because they are re-breathing expired air or their nose and mouth are compressed.

Both soft and firm bumper pads are dangerous. Researchers of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome indicate that a soft pad can cause suffocation while a hard pad can provide a means for babies to climb and fall out of the crib.

A bill sponsored by Los Angeles Assemblyman Mike Feuer to ensure that most nursing home abuse and neglect investigations be completed within 40 days after a complaint is made passed the Legislature. It is awaiting signature by the Governor, whose office says he has not yet decided whether he will sign it.

More than 110,000 Californians reside in nursing homes each year. This law is needed to protect those senior citizens from serious injury or death from neglect or abuse. "A timely investigation with timely results can make the difference literally between life and death sometimes," Feuer said.

Passengers are more likely to be killed or suffer permanent and serious injuries, like being paralyzed, in rollover accidents than in almost any other type of car accident. Only head-on collisions kill more people.

In 2004, a jury awarded more than $80 million to a woman permanently paralyzed when the Ford Explorer she was driving rolled over after she swerved to avoid debris in the highway. The jury also awarded more than $200 million in punitive damages because it found that Ford knew about the problem but did not warn consumers. The trial judge later reduced the jury's verdict to $150 million.

Although publicly Ford defends the safety of its SUVs, it has been negotiating quietly behind the scenes to put an end to the lawsuits. An announcement is expected later this month.

Although this collision did not occur in Los Angeles, jury awards for this type of injury are similar in Kentucky where it did occur. The collision was in March 2006 on Interstate 35. The Defendant claimed that the motorcycle entered the freeway and cut in front of the truck. After trial testimony from accident reconstructionists, a jury found that the truck changed lanes and caused the collision.

The motorcyclist, Walter Browning was a 13-year Army veteran and former security guard, lost four fingers on his left hand and can no longer walk without assistance because of massive injuries to his left leg.

If a person is severely injured in a car crash, they may suffer significant injury such as a neck or back disk injury requiring hospitalization and surgery. Some patients contract infections while in the hospital which could make them worse and certainly would prolong recovery.

Each year an estimated 1.7 million hospital patients develop infections which adds thousands of dollars to the cost of treatment. Giving patients an appropriate antibiotic in the hour before surgery has been found to reduce infection risks, as has good hand-washing and other practices. Yet not all hospitals perform such preventive measures with consistency.

Results of a recent survey of Los Angeles Hospitals where patients receive preventative antibiotics one hour before surgery ranked Cedars-Sinai Medical Center as a top rated hospital with more than 95% of patients getting pre-operative antibiotics. At Valley Presbyterian Hospital only 35% of surgical patients received pre-op antibiotics.

From a legal standpoint, a frivolous lawsuit would be one that is without any merit. Someone making a legal claim has the burden of proving his or her case. If there is no evidence to support the claim, it could be said to be without merit or frivolous. These cases generally do not get to a jury because there are various procedures the Court uses to dismiss such claims.

Many of us think the McDonald's coffee case is the perfect example of a frivolous claim. What we heard in the media was that a lady spilled hot coffee on herself and a jury gave her millions. That just sounds wrong. Why would a jury of twelve supposedly rational people make someone who has made a frivolous claim rich? The answer is simple - because there is a whole lot more to the story than you probably heard about in the media.

Mrs. Liebeck who was seated in the passenger seat of a car did, indeed, put the coffee cup between her legs to open the lid. When the coffee spilled, she suffered 3rd degree burns to her thighs, groin and abdomen - approximately 6% of her body. She had lesser burns to 16% of her body. She was hospitalized for eight days and underwent several surgeries.

Her attempt to settle her case with McDonald's for about $20,000, representing her medical bills, was unsuccessful. McDonald's offered her $800, so she hired a lawyer. Before trial, a judge recommended settlement of $225,000, but McDonald's also refused that recommendation.

At trial, the McDonald's defended the case on the grounds that people like coffee they way they serve it, as proven by the fact that each day McDonald's sells $1.35 million worth of coffee. McDonald's admitted, however, that it had never tested whether decreasing the temperature of the coffee to a safer level would impact the amount of coffee it sold. This admission was critical because, in a previous case McDonald's settled with another burn victim, it had promised to do such testing.

After hearing the evidence, a jury awarded Mrs. Liebeck $200,000 for her injuries, a figure that was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found that she was 20% responsible for causing the injury.

The jury felt that, at a minimum, McDonald's should do the market testing it had promised to do when it settled that earlier case. Because it had broken that promise and because it knew that customers were regularly suffering serious burns from its coffee, the jury decided McDonald's deserved to be punished. It awarded Mrs. Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages. How did it reach that figure? It penalized McDonald's the equivalent of two days' coffee sales.

After trial, the judge reduced the punitive damage award to $480,000, for a total verdict of $640,000. McDonald's appealed and the case was settled for a confidential amount widely rumored to be less than $600,000.

I would hope that most would agree that Mrs. Liebeck did not file a frivolous lawsuit. She suffered a serious injury and there was evidence that McDonald's had not acted responsibly in how it served its coffee. A jury found the evidence presented on her behalf compelling. What it did in response, when put into context, made a great deal of sense and represented a very modest punishment of McDonald's. Furthermore, when the argument was made that the jury's verdict was excessive, that problem was appropriately addressed by the trial court judge, who substantially reduced it.

Although you wouldn't know it by what you hear in the media, our civil justice system works very well. There are checks and balances built into the system which generally ferret out claims that do not have any merit and to limit the amount of damages a plaintiff receives to what is fair and just compensation based on the nature and extent of the injury suffered.

The next time you hear talk about a "frivolous lawsuit," I hope you will remember the McDonald's coffee case and, at least, wonder about the information you are not being provided about what happened.

I also bought a disposable camera and put it into the glove box. Take pictures, I told her, of your car, the other cars and intersection or location of the accident. Today, I suppose, she would be able to use her cell phone for this purpose.

Within a week after she began driving, she was involved in her first accident. She was shaken and upset - the accident had been her fault - but she had all of the information necessary to assist our insurance company to process the claim.

Giving some thought to what information you are likely to need in the event of an automobile accident is a good way to prepare for something you hope never will happen. In the long run, doing so will make the whole experience less traumatic for you and for those you love. In the event you are injured in an accident that is not your fault, the information you collect at the scene will be invaluable to your lawyer.