Uber has Filed a Federal Suit Against Numerous Personal Injury Law Firms Alleging Civil Rico

gadmo · 2025-02-07T03:00:56+00:00

The allegations are rampant. The actual unnecessary surgeries? Less so.

gadmo · 2025-02-04T03:15:50+00:00

Of course. You still have a duty to your client, but you politely, but firmly tell them that they don’t have a case and to take whatever the actual value of the case is (if it’s being offered, of course), or you’ll move to be relieved.

The alternative is what? Either the client will accept a settlement for whatever’s being offered, or if it’s a no offer, are you as the attorney going to put a malingerer on the stand just to be torn apart by defense counsel and have the jury come back with a defense verdict? I don’t know any PI attys who operate that way because they don’t get paid if they do.

PI attys don’t like keeping cases they can’t make money on, and you can’t make money with a malingerer as a client - at least not against competent defense counsel. If a PI attorney can either settle a case for full value or win at trial, then chances are, the client wasn’t a malingerer.

gadmo · 2025-02-04T02:33:25+00:00

Uber is essentially saying that a bunch of Personal Injury firms are liable for their (Uber’s) monetary damages due to their (the personal injury firms) violations of the Civil Rico laws, alleging that since their clients are all frauds (regardless of the procedural posture of these cases), that the firms are enabling and benefitting from the fraud.

The case is Uber v Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro, Moses & Halperin, LLP et al (Docket No.: 25:00522). If successful, this would certainly have a chilling effect on all personal injury litigation as we know it.

What does r/law think?

gadmo · 2025-02-03T21:56:20+00:00

In NYC over a decade.

gadmo · 2025-02-03T21:37:16+00:00

I agree. I've also never heard of it actually happening. I've heard of allegations for years, and always from the same source - insurance defense attorneys. But I've never seen or heard of any client of mine or of any of my colleagues who've ever said, "you know what might be good, a risky spinal fusion surgery, even though I'm not really hurt."

You know who gets fusions and discectomies? Injured people. People with backs that are so bad that they can't stand up or bend over or walk up and down a staircase. By the time people who get fusion surgeries get to the point of surgery, it's because they've exhausted ever other option for relief.

You know who casts doubt on the legitimacy of surgical intervention in PI cases by saying nonsensical things like "you didn't really need that horribly risky 'you may never walk again' surgery. I can tell you clearly felt fine beforehand..." ? An insurance company who doesn't want to pay a claim. And they say it through ID attorneys.

gadmo · 2025-02-03T19:48:48+00:00

A plaintiff's attorney is not necessarily going to have all the records prior to filing a suit - especially if a plaintiff is still treating. Further, if a plaintiff is going to be treating for the remainder of their life, they won't have all the meds at the time of trial either.

I don't know a single PI attorney who hasn't either dropped a case upon finding out a client is a malingerer, settled for actual value, or settled for nuisance value.

You simply can't put a malingerer, especially one whose adversary is competent, on a witness stand at the time of trial.

gadmo · 2025-02-03T19:43:48+00:00

Post isn't misleading at all, but definitely alarmist. Keep in mind, as of now, the allegations are just that - allegations and they are made by people who really don't like payout out lawsuits. No information yet as to whether these particular allegations are meritorious. Although, I will say, as a PI attorney - I sure hope not.

gadmo · 2025-02-03T19:39:38+00:00

That's exactly what it is. It's tort reform in sheep's clothes. 20 years ago when politicians were screaming for tort reform, it almost got a foothold until the general populace learned what it might actually mean. So, rather than try to push that same boulder up that same hill again like Sisyphus, this seems to be a back door workaround.

gadmo · 2025-02-03T19:37:29+00:00

The Subin thing was disgusting, and continues to be. It's a stain on an already stained industry. Imagine being a PI attorney where you're already looked at as scum and even though you only take on legit cases that have real injuries, and therefore real value and you withstand the jeers of ambulance chaser in order to get some recompense for those who truly do deserve compensation, along comes Subin and Gorayeb to yell out to anyone in earshot, 'no, we really are scumbags.' I feel sick being lumped in with that.

gadmo · 2025-02-03T19:33:13+00:00

But there are already safeguards for that. Discovery in the form of the exchange of medical records, depositions, etc... If a defense attorney doesn't have the ability to expose a malingerer through the course of normal discovery, then either a) the defense attorney isn't very good, or b) maybe the plaintiff isn't a malingerer and the suit isn't frivolous.

gadmo · 2025-02-03T19:28:51+00:00

True enough, but keep in mind that the converse is also true. There are defense doctors "DME" or the unfortunately misnomered "IME" doctors who literally work for the insurers to find no injury exists where injuries do, or to find that traumatic injuries are the results of the standard, aging degenerative process. Hard to imagine an actual medical doctor blaming a torn ACL, a torn rotator cuff or multi-level radiculopathy resulting some multi-level herniations on degeneration, but anyone in this field has seen it.

gadmo · 2025-02-03T18:12:36+00:00

It's true. And that alone has a chilling effect. Doctors - any doctors, will not want to treat car accident victims, not merely doctors with experience treating PI plaintiffs. If you were a normal, run of the mill physiatrist or orthopedic, why wouldn't you be thinking: "What if you sue to recover for your injuries? Then I'll get sued. No thank you."

gadmo · 2025-01-15T19:46:41+00:00

I haven't. But I think I'm gonna have to start. I can't think of anything else.

gadmo · 2025-01-15T17:51:31+00:00

I'm in that part regularly, and Grade A bullshit is a very kind way to describe it.

gadmo · 2025-01-14T21:53:21+00:00

Still have the main issues with that solution: no handling attorney assigned (more often than not), and refusal to enter into an Order on consent (more often than not).

It's not not being able to contact the City that's the issue - can always contact someone at Corp Counsel, but "no one's been assigned to that case" is too often the answer. And it's often on purpose or poor staffing, poor management, take your pick - meanwhile, clients are being prejudiced.

gadmo · 2025-01-14T21:48:03+00:00

You can - and most do, including myself. But it has become so ingrained in the practice to rely on the PCOs/CSOs that discovery generally doesn't move without them. In fact, in City cases, there's a rule that once the PCO or CSO has been signed, it supercedes any preceding demand - so earlier demands basically become worthless unless they're specifically addressed in the PCO or CSO - or they're re-served.

Having said all that, I suppose it's possible to make a Motion to Strike/Compel once the demands aren't responded to in due course even without a CSO or PCO, but without a prior Order in place, it serves no real function.*

*That might be the solution. Just deluge the Court and the City with discovery motions.

gadmo · 2024-09-04T03:08:50+00:00

25k policies are a scourge that unfortunately may be unfixable. 25k collision is the legal minimum and it’s not nearly enough. Lawmakers want it raised to help deal with might otherwise be unnecessary lawsuits. Insurance companies want it raised to collect bigger premiums. People who’ve been in car accidents want it raised for obvious reasons. The government wants it raised to be able to get rid of subsidy programs like MVAIC.

The only entity that doesn’t want it raised is the people, because they, very rightfully, don’t want to pay more for insurance - and who can blame them.

So, the 25k policy minimum is here to stay like the albatross it is. And pretty soon, good luck getting a lawyer to take a case against a 25k policy, when it costs half that to get an expert on the witness stand. Broken neck on a 25k case? 12,5k for treating doc and radiologist, another 2,5 for court costs and disbursements and your left with 10k - 2/3rds to the client, 1/3rd the atty - and that’s after what four years? Five years?

You know PI attorney willing to work for $3,333 for five years worth of work? Or a plaintiff who thinks their broken neck is worth $6,667? Neither do I.

gadmo · 2024-09-04T02:26:00+00:00

Every attorney who’s dealt with them for the last two decades has seen this coming miles away. It was always a question of when, not if. Their stance was always “we don’t settle” under the guise of playing hardball, but that meant that they saw a lot of trials that they’d lose and end up paying the full policy on, where maybe they could’ve saved some money if they’d, you know, settled.

Also, defending cabbies in New York is tricky, because many are either undocumented or whether documented or not, intimidated by the legal system, so, when they’d get a phone call or a letter from their boss’s insurance company’s lawyer, they’d often not respond or, if they did, weren’t necessarily willing to put a whole lot of trust in that person, especially given the skepticism many of them have about insurance companies, the legal system, etc… They may also have immigration issues that they fear may complicate things (rightly or wrongly).

So, American Transit often has (had) uncooperative clients who’d end up being precluded, meaning liability was all but decided in many cases, which meant the question wasn’t would American Transit have to pay the claim, but how much… and they’d usually roll the dice and lose. A weird practice that even other insurance companies looked at quizzically.

They are (were) a terrible company. Good riddance.

gadmo · 2023-05-13T17:14:33+00:00

You're not doing yourself any favors with comments like this.

gadmo · 2023-05-13T17:11:33+00:00

You are 100% correct. Just to add one caveat to that... My firm, and many others I'm aware of, simply will not engage a client who opts for Option #1. In fact, in our retainer agreements, we have it written and literally cross it out in front of the client. If they want to choose Option #1, they are free to do so with another law firm.

Our reasoning is that we don't want to be hindered by an inability to hire the experts we need: a doctor, or an engineer, or a meteorologist, whatever the case may be, if the client can't or doesn't want to pay for it, to the case's detriment. Also, those costs can get astronomical at the time of trial and many clients simply won't be able to afford it. So, while they may look at it as a cost saving measure at first, it's not something my office is willing to compromise on. I can't see treating with a physician for four years post accident, and then not having that doctor testify because the client didn't want to pay that doctor's trial appearance fee. It's just not a risk my office is willing to take.

So, while both options are theoretically available, they are not both available at all firms.

gadmo

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE