Car accident victims are almost always concerned about medical bills and if they will be saddled with extraordinary debt as a result of a crash that someone else caused. Our team of diligent Raleigh car accident lawyers has guided countless individuals through the legal system and helped accident victims understand their rights after someone else has driven carelessly and caused a crash. If you face serious medical bills and other expenses, you may be entitled to compensation. Let us help you assert your legal rights today.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal handled a case that involved an issue stemming from medical bills that a victim incurred as the result of a car accident. The victim of the crash reported to a hospital to receive treatment for his injuries. The hospital learned that another driver was responsible for the accident and instead of billing the plaintiff’s healthcare insurer, it decided to rely on medical lien statutes and any payments that the plaintiff received from the other driver. It sent the plaintiff a letter notifying him that he had nearly $7,000 in medical bills and that the hospital asserted a medical lien against any liability recovery, medical payments, or uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

A statute prohibits hospitals from billing patients for expenses that would have been covered pursuant to a healthcare policy. In the lawsuit that arose regarding payment of the plaintiff’s bills, the court had to consider whether this statute prohibits a hospital from relying solely on medical liens and any potential judgment that the patient receives from someone who caused the injury instead of billing the health insurer for that patient.

Continue reading

There are countless laws that apply to a personal injury accident lawsuit and some of these laws allow the defendant to examine whether a plaintiff acted negligently in contributing to his or her injury. At Maurer Law, we have seen firsthand how disruptive and stressful an injury accident can be for the victim. Our seasoned team of Charlotte personal injury lawyers is standing by to help you explore whether you have a right to compensation.

Recently, a plaintiff in a personal injury action filed an appeal after the lower court denied her claim against the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) seeking compensation for injuries that she suffered when she cut across a grass median and fell into a storm drain some five feet underground. She alleged specifically that the entity was negligent in maintaining and inspecting the storm drain because when she fell into the drain, the grate that would have covered the opening had been removed and was lying on the grass five feet away.

The plaintiff brought the claim under the North Carolina Tort Claims Act. This statute sets out a different set of rules and guidelines that parties must follow when seeking damages from a government entity. Unlike a regular negligence claim against a private person, there are different things that a plaintiff must prove to prevail against a government entity. In most cases, claims against municipalities are more complex and require the experience of a dedicated personal injury lawyer.

Continue reading

If you are injured in a car accident or pedestrian accident it is critical for you to know your rights and to understand whether the person who caused your injuries owes you compensation. There are countless doctrines and laws that are involved in a personal injury accident, which can make the process seem incredibly overwhelming. At Maurer Law, our seasoned Raleigh car accident lawyers are prepared to help you navigate the legal system as efficiently and smoothly as possible while ensuring that you receive the fair outcome that you deserve.

A recent case involved a pedestrian accident in which the plaintiff, a pedestrian, was attempting to cross the street. The plaintiff stepped into the roadway in front of an SUV that had come to a stop in the road because of accumulating traffic in its lane. As the plaintiff stepped into the road, she peered around the front of the SUV to see if the lane was clear. The SUV driver blew its horn and the plaintiff decided to run across the road. The defendant’s vehicle, which was traveling in the lane adjacent to the lane in which the SUV was stopped, immediately struck the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the defendant was negligent in hitting the plaintiff. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by running out into the road. The lower court agreed and granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that there were questions of fact regarding whether she was contributorily negligent and whether the doctrine of last clear chance applied.

Continue reading

One of the biggest questions we receive as North Carolina workers’ compensation lawyers is whether a work injury is covered under the system. The system is designed to provide compensation for injuries that happen on the job or as a direct result of a worker’s job duties. We have handled countless work injury claims and have substantial experience navigating the workers’ compensation system. We are ready to put our dedicated legal service to use on your behalf.

In a recent workers’ compensation claim, a worker suffered an injury while working as a flight attendant when she attempted to remove a wheelchair dislodged in a compartment on a plane. The defendant insurance company denied the plaintiff’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits, and a deputy commissioner determined that the worker should be awarded partial relief. The parties appealed, and the Full Commission denied the plaintiff’s claim outright on the basis of credibility.

After reviewing the basic workers’ compensation rules, the appellate court specified that for an injury to be compensable, it must happen in the course of employment, which involves reviewing the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident took place. The worker’s first basis for appeal was that the lower court did not make proper findings regarding the testimony that her co-workers provided. The appellate court disagreed. Just because the court failed to recite the testimony or make significant mention of it in its opinion did not necessarily mean that the court failed to consider the weight of the testimony. Reviewing the opinion, the judge made numerous references to the testimony and described the co-workers’ testimony in detail.

Continue reading

The media has covered several stories lately chronicling the dangers of hazing in fraternities and sororities. When students take initiation rituals too far, the consequences can be devastating for those involved. Although the police may investigate potential charges against the individuals responsible for the injuries that result, the victim and his or her loved ones may have a civil claim to recover compensation for their injuries.

In a recent case, the North Carolina Court of Appeals considered an unfortunate situation in which a student died while at the apartment of another student. The victim was a pledge of a local fraternity chapter and his estate brought a claim against the fraternity and other individuals alleging that the victim lost his life as a direct result of the fraternity’s failure to protect the victim from the dangers of hazing-related activities.

The fraternity moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion on the basis that the plaintiff failed to plead facts showing that the victim’s death was the foreseeable cause of the fraternity’s conduct. The victim’s estate appealed.

Continue reading

A difficult aspect of some workers’ compensation claims is proving that the injury was the direct result of your job duties. Many insurers and employers will attempt to argue that your injury was the result of some other activity or factor, such as a hobby or a pre-existing condition. As dedicated North Carolina work injury lawyers, we have assisted numerous individuals with ensuring that they receive the fair treatment they deserve following a painful and debilitating accident at work.

In a recent claim, the plaintiff filed a claim alleging that he received negligent care from a medical professional when he was treated for a stroke that he suffered at work. Plaintiff also filed a workers’ compensation claim based on the same situation. The workers’ compensation claim was dismissed on the basis that the injuries that the plaintiff suffered were not caused by his job duties or occupation and that as a result he was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The plaintiff did not appeal the denial of his claim.

The defendants in the civil case moved to dismiss the matter alleging that the plaintiff’s appropriate remedy was through the workers’ compensation system. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment and the defendants appealed. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the medical negligence claims and that the facts giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim did not arise out of the course and scope of the plaintiff’s employment. It also relied on the Industrial Commission’s denial of the plaintiff’s claim for benefits in reaching this conclusion.

Continue reading

Premises liability accidents involve any injury that happens on someone else’s property as a result of the property owner’s failure to maintain the premises in a safe manner. Many people commonly associate this type of accident with a slip and fall at the supermarket but there are countless different scenarios that have caused North Carolina residents to suffer injuries. As seasoned Raleigh personal injury attorneys, we are ready to help you fight for the settlement or the judgment that you deserve.

In a recent claim, a plaintiff attended a funeral at a church in Dunn, North Carolina, where he claimed that he suffered injuries while carrying the deceased’s casket during the service. The plaintiff offered to help carry the casket after the minister asked the plaintiff if he would be willing to help because there were not enough church employees to help carry the casket out of the church after the service.

The plaintiff exited the church at the start of the service and walked to the hearse where the casket was located. When the plaintiff was carrying the casket along with other pallbearers back through the same entrance, he alleged in his complaint that he tripped on the top step of the staircase and suffered injuries to his knees.

Continue reading

Vacation rentals are a great way to unwind, but they can also pose serious threats to your health and safety. It’s hard to know whether a property has been maintained safely, especially with the rise of apps that allow you to stay in someone’s private home. The lack of oversight from a professional management company can make it easier for the property owner to miss safety issues. As dedicated North Carolina premises liability injury lawyers, we are prepared to help you secure the compensation you deserve from a careless property owner.

In a recent case, the plaintiff’s filed a complaint against the owner of a property that they rented through an app-based service alleging that they suffered Legionnaires’ disease due to the owner’s failure to properly maintain the hot tub and adjacent waterfall located on the property. They also asserted a claim against the company that the property owner had retained to maintain the water features after construction and installation was complete.

The defendants filed motions for summary judgment that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a connection between the disease they contracted and the defendants’ maintenance of the property. The trial court ultimately agreed with the defendants and granted summary judgment in their favor. The court noted in its statement of decision that the plaintiffs had failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove their claim.

Continue reading

Some traffic accidents aren’t the result of another driver’s negligence. Instead, they may be the result of a poorly designed roadway. In this instance, the injury victims can bring a lawsuit against the government entity responsible for designing and maintaining the roadway under the North Carolina Tort Claims Act. The procedures and rules that govern cases against municipalities are much different than traditional negligence cases, however, which makes it extremely important to consult with an experienced attorney about your claim.

Recently, a North Carolina appellate court considered an appeal in a case involving an allegation that a government entity in North Carolina did not properly design and/or maintain a roadway. The plaintiff filed a claim for damages pursuant to the Tort Claims Act against the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) seeking damages in excess of $1 million. He asserted that the DOT employees were negligent in designing, maintaining, and providing appropriate warning measures for a curve in a roadway next to a pond.

The plaintiff alleged that he was delivering firewood at the end of a rural, dead-end road that featured an “S” curve around a pond and that some of his relatives were following in an SUV behind him. There were no warnings about the curve or speed reduction signs. The driver of the SUV was unfamiliar with the roadway. Plaintiff heard tires screeching and looked in his rear-view mirror to see the SUV tumble into the pond where it landed upside down. Two occupants of the SUV passed away and the third suffered permanent, severe brain damage.

Continue reading

Under North Carolina law, a jury can take into consideration whether a plaintiff’s own negligence was a contributing factor in causing his or her injuries. This is often one of the defenses that a defendant will assert in a personal injury case in an attempt to avoid paying damages. If the defendant is successful in establishing that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, the defendant will not be required to pay damages. At Maurer Law, we can assist you in protecting your right to recovery and securing the outcome that you deserve.

A recent appellate opinion discussed the doctrine of contributory negligence. The plaintiff went with his fraternity to a state park that included a picnic area with a pier that extended several hundred feet into the middle of the lake. The plaintiff decided to take a swim one morning and went to the pier. The water was dark and he could not ascertain the depth. There were no signs regarding the depth of the lake, but he recalled seeing boats on the lake and various indications that swimming from the pier was acceptable. He also saw the metal ladders leading from the pier into the water. The plaintiff and his friends also threw rocks into the water in an attempt to determine its depth.

The plaintiff ultimately dove off the pier and struck the bottom of the lake with his head resulting in sharp pain in his right arm and torso stiffness. He ultimately required spinal surgery and spent six weeks in a cranial halo, although he lacked sensation in his right side and lower right extremity.

Continue reading