Cell Phone Auto Accident Lawyers Serving New York to California, from Texas and Georgia and Florida to Illinois and Michigan, from Alaska to Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho and Indiana, from Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Maryland, to Maine, Cell Phone Car Accident Attorneys, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina from North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey to New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

California Cell Phone Auto Accident Lawyers

Our cell phone auto accident lawyers consider that it is important to for attorneys representing clients in contested liability auto accidents to investigate whether the other motorist was driving while using his cell phone immediately prior to the accident. The evidence can be as useful in tiping the scales on liability just as evidence that the other driver was DUI level drunk at the time of the accident will tip the liability scales. Our cell phone accident attorneys will also suggest that it is important in every case involving serious injuries to determine if the other driver was engaged in a business call. In serious injury cases the client's general damages and special economic damages, including past and future medical expenses and past and future earnings losses may fairly be proven in the millions or tens of millions of dollars. Yet in most auto accidents the other driver may carry only the statutory minimum or minimal auto liability insurance coverage. One means of gaining access to larger insurance policies can be to name the other driver's employer as a defendant based on evidence that by engaging in the business call, the other driver was operating his vehicle "in the course and scope of his employment" at the time of the accident.

In every contested liability case and every serious injury auto accident case, whether or not there is witness testimony that the other party was conversing by cell phone at the time of the accident, it can be important to obtain auto accident attorneys who are well versed in the cell phone scientific evidence, and willing and able to do the appropriate investigation, including to obtain the other party's cell phone records. The investigation may provide the evidence to turn a tough contested liability auto accident case into a strong case, given that expert testimony can be adduced that by reason of the other motorist's use of his cell phone he was driving the equivalent of DUI level driving impaired. The cell phone records combined with the lawyer's interrogation of the defendant motorist at trial may also yield important evidence that the driver was engaged in a business call, which can be very important evidence in serious injury auto accident cases to bring in the employer as a defendant with its greater insurance and assets available to compensate the seriously injured auto accident victim for his general and special economic damages, including what may be very large past and future medical expense claims and past and future earnings loss claims.

Free Cell Phone Auto Accident Lawyer Case Consultations: If you have been injured in an accident we welcome you to contact our auto accident lawyers knowledgeable about the discovery and use of cell phone evidence You may contact our cell phone car accident attorneys by submitting the "Contact" form and one of our trial lawyers with extensive knowledge of accident litigation involving the presentation of cell phone evidence will call you to provide our initial case evaluation and free case consultation. Our Law Group cell phone auto accident attorneys will consider your serious injury auto accident case from California to New York, from Texas, Georgia and Florida to Illinois, Michigan and Alaska; Our cell phone auto accident lawyers will consider representing serious injury cases from Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, and Idaho and Indiana, from Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Maryland, to Maine, Cell Phone Auto Accident Attorneys, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, and Lawyer, North Carolina from North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Attorney New Jersey to New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming

Evidence that the other driver was on his cell phone at the time of the accident can provide evidence particularly useful in contested liability auto accident cases, where often the only witnesses to the accident are the two drivers, or where there is independent witness testimony that conflicts. In the "he said, she said" accident, as it is sometimes colloquially described, and in other cases where the witness testimony is conflicting, the jury's job may largely turn on its estimations of the relative credibility of the witnesses, but also with the Judge's instruction that the plaintiff bares the burden of proof. The jury verdict sheets are filled with such cases suggesting that the jurors faced with conflicting evidence will often just throw up their hands and render a defense verdict based on the burden of proof instruction. However, where the additional evidence is admitted at trial that the defendant driver was on his cell phone in the moments preceding the accident, it can be demonstrated through expert testimony that the defendant was the equivalent of DUI level driving impaired, 4 times more likely to cause the accident. With this additional evidence of culpability on the part of the defendant driver, the case becomes one similar to the case where the other driver was driving DUI level drunk, and so in evenly contested auto accident cases we consider that our cell phone lawyers can offer the jury the additional evidence to tip the scales to find the defendant liable.

Another important use which cell phone auto accident lawyers find will significantly improve the opportunities for seriously injured auto accident victims to recover fully for their injuries, general and special economic damages, is the evidence that the other driver made or received business related call. Often now with long morning commutes to work and while driving during the work day, employees are using their phones more than ever before to make business calls, to their secretaries or bosses or to prospective clients to firm up a meeting later in the day. The cell phone car accident lawyer can obtain the defendant driver's cell phone records and question him in deposition to determine whether the driver was engaged in a business call while he was driving. The cell phone auto accident lawyer recognizes this evidence as important in serious injury auto accident cases in particular because there is law in every state that the employer vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees that occur in the "course and scope" of the employment. In most, if not all states, accidents occurring during a "commute" to work do not result in employer liability just as other driving for personal reasons cannot form the basis for vicarious liability against the employer. However, where the cell phone car accident attorneys can demonstrate that the commuting motorist was involved in a business call he was while driving, this additional evidence can be used to establish the employer's liability.

In the vast majority of serious injury auto accident cases the defendant driver will have liability insurance inadequate to compensate even a fraction of the victim's general and special economic damages. "General damages" are the client's injuries, his pain and suffering, and in many cases most importantly, his loss of enjoyment of life damages. Special economic damages include the client's past and future medical expenses and his past and future earnings losses. While the damages in a serious injury auto accident case may be valued in the millions or tens of millions of dollars, it is the experience of auto accident lawyers that in most such cases the other driver will carry only the statutory minimum or minimal auto liability insurance coverage, inadequate to pay but the smallest fraction of the full measure of the client's damages. However, if there is a basis for naming the employer as a defendant in the case on theories of vicarious liability, or respondeat superior, as where it can be demonstrated that the employee was operating his vehicle in the course and scope of his employment, the employer's much larger insurance policy and assets then can form the basis for recovery for the full measure of the client's damages.

Therefore, as suggested above, the cell phone auto accident lawyer's investigation and discovery in the litigation, often demonstrating that the defendant motorist was on his cell phone at the time of the accident can aid in establishing liability; and if the motorist was engaged in a business related call at the time of the accident, then it can aid in increasing the insurance and assets against which the seriously injured client can then recover for his full general damages and special economic damages.

Our Cell Phone Auto Accident Lawyers Consider it Important in Every Contested Liability Auto Accident Case and in Every Serious Injury Case to Do the Investigation and Discovery to Determine if the Auto Driver Was on His Cell Phone or Texting, Whether or Not Any Witness Noticed That the Motorist Was Using his Cell Phone.

It is our cell phone auto accident attorneys observation that it is rare that a witness will notice that a motorist was on his cell phone in the moments preceding an accident, particularly now as more and more drivers are switching to hands-free cell phones for use while driving. Furthermore, it is our cell phone car accident lawyers observation that it is also rare that the law enforcement officer called to investigate the accident will ask if the parties were on their phones in the moments before the accident. And it is rare indeed that a driver who has caused an accident will volunteer that he was on the cell phone immediately prior to the accident.

Yet we know that one out of every ten drivers on our American streets and highways at any given daylight moment in time will be actively involved in cell conversation, and that one in four accidents result from cell phone use while driving, so whether or not a witness has noticed that the other driver was on his cell phone, and whether or not there is any other information developed by the investigating officer at the scene, our cell phone auto accident attorneys consider it very important to do the discovery to determine if the car driver was using his cell phone. As noted above, this investigation is most important in contested liability cases, and further discovery to determine whether the call was business related can be essential to obtain full compensation for the seriously injured auto accident victim.

The federal government has tracked the use of cell phones while driving and has compiled yearly statistics which demonstrate that there has been indeed an epidemic rise in the use of cell phones from the 1990's through this first decade of our century. And our cell phone car accident lawyers have followed this epidemic with concern, including in our efforts to educate lobbyists in several states to urge their legislators to enact comprehensive cell phone bans, both prohibiting the use of handheld and hands-free cell phones, as conversation by either results in the same DUI level driving impairment and 4 fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident.

Defining the epidemic of cell phone use while driving, NOPUS found that in the year 2000 only two in one hundred drivers on our American streets and highways were using their cell phones at any given moment in time. By the year 2005 the percentage of drivers on the road actively using their cell phones at any given moment had risen to one in ten. An abundance of scientific literature, from the early large epidemiological studies, published in prestigious peer review journals, though to the more recent controlled experimental studies have consistently demonstrated that these drivers are the equivalent of DUI level driving impaired and 4 to 5 times more likely to cause an accident. And it doesn't matter whether the driver was using a handheld or hands-free cell phone, as the driving impairment doesn't result from holding the phone; rather, it results from the shifting of the driver's attention to the cognitive give and take of the conversation, away from the visual tasks essential for safe driving. Therefore, it is the full 10 percent of drivers conversing by handheld and hands-free cell phones while driving at any given moment in time, and the one in four likelihood that any accident will have involved a driver using a cell phone, against whom the evidence of their distracted driving and 4 fold increased likelihood of causing an accident can be used to shore up the liability case, and aid in demonstrating liability against the employer. It is our cell phone auto accident attorneys conclusion that it is more than worthwhile to conduct the investigation to determine whether the other motorist was using his cell phone at the time of the accident.

Our cell phone auto accident lawyers have also tracked the scientific literature with regard to "texting" or "test messaging" while driving. The scientific evidence more recently developed has tracked the growing epidemic of texting while driving, particularly among teenagers. Text messaging while driving results in a 23 fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident, substantially greater than the four to five fold increased likelihood that driving under the influence of cell conversation will result in an accident.. Twenty one percent of fatal auto accidents in which teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 were driving resulted from texting while driving. And again, when it can be determined that the driver was texting while driving the cell phone car accident lawyer may use this evidence and his expert testimony to good use in contested liability auto accident cases and serious injury cases.

Auto, Motorcycle, Car and Big Rig Truck Accident Cases Often Involve Serious Injuries from Spinal Cord Injuries, Including Paraplegia and Quadriplegia, from Catastrophic Internal Injuries to Devastating Orthopedic Injuries, and Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, or Death, Recommend Highly Qualified Cell Phone Auto Accident Lawyers to Contribute to Establishing Liability and Experienced Trial Attorneys Both to Prepare the Client's Full Measure of General and Special Economic Damages, and to Identify Additional Proper Parties Defendant With Insurance And Assets Sufficient Pay the Full Amount of the Damages.

In any auto accident case liability may be contested, and so it is important to engage appropriately qualified cell phone auto accident lawyers fully knowledgeable about the science, and experienced in the legal strategies for determining if the other driver was using his cell phone or texting at the time of the accident. However, in serious injury auto accidents in particular, where it is most common that the other motorist will have insufficient liability insurance to compensate the seriously injured plaintiff for his full measure of general and special economic damages, it can be essential to the client's full recovery at settlement conferences or in executing the judgment following trial, that cell phone car accident lawyer will have developed the evidence wherever possible to sue and adduce the evidence of the employer's vicarious liability.

Every serious injury auto accident case is complex, even cases in which liability on the part of the other driver is admitted. First, it is the serious injury trial lawyer's responsibility to adequately prepare the client's general and special economic damages to maximize the opportunities to assure that the evidence of the full measure of the client's damages is established in preparation for settlement conferences and trial. Auto accident victims can suffer devastating injuries. The client will sometimes suffer quadriplegia, paraplegia or other spinal cord injury resulting in extraordinary restrictions upon the activities even the most courageous can participate in. The accident victim may suffer devastating internal injury requiring a lifetime of medical care. The cell phone auto accident lawyer's client may have suffered catastrophic orthopedic injury resulting in a lifetime of pain and suffering. Accident victims who suffer traumatic brain injury or TBI may suffer cognitive and mental deficits both impairing their ability to experience life fully and significantly impairing their ability to obtain gainful employment.

In cases involving auto accidents in which the victim is seriously injured, the experienced trial lawyer will first need to develop the evidence of the client's general damages, through expert medical testimony describing the full nature and extent of his injuries. Most auto accident lawyers refer to general damages as "pain and suffering," but it is our cell phone car accident lawyers and serious injury trial attorneys experience that in serious and catastrophic injury cases such as those involving quadriplegics, paraplegics, clients suffering other spinal cord injuries, debilitating internal injuries or traumatic brain damage, often the client will describe his most serious deprivation in terms of what we call "loss of enjoyment of life damages." Our experienced trial lawyers will commonly elicit the testimony of the client, his family and friends to describe the activities he most enjoyed prior to the accident that he can no longer enjoy. Our lawyers will then juxtapose against this evidence a professionally produced "Day in the Life" film, capturing the client's courage in confronting all of the big and small difficulties he encounters in his daily life. It is out cell phone auto accident attorneys and trial lawyers observation that settlement judges and juries often demonstrate greater empathy for the client who faces the daily difficulties resulting from his disability, even if it is just struggling to learn how to use a straw or traverse from his bed to his wheelchair.

Special economic damages include past and future medical expense and past and future earnings losses. And in the serious injury case, the experienced trial lawyer will be called upon to engage multiple experts to establish the full measure of the client's future medical expense and future earnings loss. In the case of the client with paraplegia, or severe internal injury or traumatic brain injury, the medical expenses the client will require to sustain himself over the course of his lifetime can be enormous. Past medical expenses are fairly easy to substantiate, just by adding up the client's medical billing from the date of the accident through the date of the settlement conference or trial. Experienced serious injury attorneys will be required to engage a number of experts to properly present the client's future medical expense, including medical experts in the various disciplines of medicine that will be involved in the treatment of the client's injury and sequelae. The attorney representing the quadriplegic client will require medical testimony from a host of medical experts to adequately describe all of the care he will require over the course of his life expectancy. The same with the client who suffers devastating internal injuries, from expenses that may be required for transplants or injury repair, to medications that the client may require to take on a daily basis over his life. The serious injury lawyer with a brain damaged client may require rehabilitation experts to testify with regard to all the therapy that will be required to permit him the greatest recovery, and then to describe, as with quadriplegic patients and clients with internal injuries, the full time or part time nursing that the client may require.

The experienced serious injury lawyer's task is then to provide the multiple expert physician reports in each case to a "life care planner" who will also speak extensively with these experts and the treating physician to comprehensively catalogue all of the future medical expenses the client is likely to incur over his lifetime, from additional surgeries to replacement prostheses to part time or full time nursing, modified vehicles, drugs, even the medical sundries that will be required in his lifetime care. He then consults with the industry publications with regard to the standard costs for every item and then in turn prepares a report listing and arriving at lifetime totals of medical expense that the client will likely incur. The serious injury attorney then presents that report to a forensic economist to adjusts the costs over time to reflect the fast growing increase in the cost of medical care, and then discounts the revised total to present cash value. These reports may be provided to settlement judges to maximize the opportunity to achieve a settlement that compensates the client for his full measure of past and future medical expenses, and then, if the case doesn't settle, then the lawyer will call these expert witnesses at trial.

Preparing lost earnings and future loss of earning capacity similarly requires the experienced serious injury attorney to engage a number of experts. These cases can be extremely complicated, as where the client was the owner and operator of a business. But even in the simplest case of an hourly wage worker, and excluding the complexities that may be involved in considering the worker's prospects for advancement and greater wages, the trial lawyer's task is still highly complex, requiring multiple experts to establish his future lost earnings resulting from his injuries. In most cases, the quadriplegic client may not have the opportunity to obtain gainful employment. A paraplegic client or one who suffers catastrophic orthopedic injury may or may not be able to return to the job he held prior to the accident, but certainly the range of employment he would be qualified to consider will be substantially circumscribed, as in the case of the mechanic who might still be able to do some types of repairs but not others, impairing the breadth of job opportunities that would be available to him. Accident victims who suffer debilitating internal injuries may be required to remain at home under the care of a full time nurse and unable to do the type of work they did before the accident, but may be able to do work on a computer part time, if the worker has the necessary education and skills. The client who suffered traumatic brain injury, TBI, depending upon the extent of his brain damage may or may not have reasonable prospects for employment, but certainly again, the range of occupations for which he is suited may be significantly reduced from those he would have been appropriately qualified prior to his accident and brain injury.

The experts the serious injury lawyer will commonly engage are first again the medical experts to testify with regard to the nature and extent of the client's injuries and with regard to his physical or mental limitations. The experienced attorney will then deliver the reports to a "rehabilitation" expert whose responsibility is to assess the breadth of occupations for which the client by reason of his education, training and experience would have been qualified to enter, including the employment he had prior to the accident. He will then assess the categories of trade or profession for which the client retains the ability to participate in. The serious injury lawyer will then deliver the rehabilitation expert's report again to the forensic economist who will determine the average wage in each of these occupations that the client would be qualified to participate in before and after the accident. He will then apply government statistics to increase the wages to correspond to the rise in wages in these occupations over time. And then he will discount the total to present value.

In this manner the serious injury trial attorney prepares the general and special economic damages for presentation to settlement judges and juries. However, as mentioned above, the true value of the client's damages in serious injury cases such as quadriplegia, paraplegia and other spinal cord injury cases or cases involving debilitating internal injuries or catastrophic orthopedic injuries or traumatic brain injury can be enormous, measuring in the millions or tens of millions of dollars. And if the driver of the car responsible for the accident has a statutory minimum liability policy, or even a relatively large policy, the client will not recover the full measure of his damages unless other more heavily insured parties, such as the other driver's employer, can be brought into the litigation as defendants on theories of vicarious liability.

So here again the serious injury case recommends highly experienced trial lawyers who are also knowledgeable cell phone car accident attorneys. In some cases the vicarious liability of the employer can be proven by other means than cell phone evidence, as where the employee was involved in transporting tools from one site to another at the time of the accident, operating his car in the course and scope of his employment. In the left column of this page such a case is described under "Recent Jury Verdicts and Settlements." However, often times the driver may be operating his vehicle on a personal errand and most states hold that employer liability does not apply to accidents occurring while the employee is commuting to work. And so, as described above, the appropriately qualified cell phone auto accident lawyer representing a seriously injured client will conduct the appropriate investigation, obtaining the other driver's cell phone records, and then interrogating the driver at deposition to determine if he was operating his vehicle while on the cell phone and engaged in a business call. If the qualified cell phone car accident attorney can accomplish this, it will commonly solve the "collectability" problem, permitting the attorney to name the employer as a defendant to permit his client to recover the full measure of his client's general and special economic damages against the employer.

Our Cell Phone Auto Accident Lawyers Will Consider Serious Injury Cases, Including Paraplegia, Quadriplegia, Other Spinal Cord Injuries, Internal Injury, Orthopedic Injuries, Leg or Arm Amputations, And Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI Cases in Most States, including from California to New York, from Texas, Georgia and Florida to Alaska, from Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona. Our Cell Phone Car Accident Attorneys for Colorado to Connecticut and Delaware, from Idaho to Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky and Louisiana, Serious Injury Cell Phone Lawyers from Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota and Missouri to Montana, North Carolina, Attorney North Dakota and Nebraska from New Hampshire and New Jersey to New Mexico, Nevada, Lawyer, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon from Pennsylvania and Rhode Island to South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Vermont, from Washington and Wisconsin to West Virginia and Wyoming.

Our cell phone auto accident lawyers provide free consultations to seriously injured victims of auto, motorcycle and big rig truck accident cases. All you need do is fill out the Contact form and one of our serious injury attorneys qualified also as cell phone car accident lawyers will contact you to inquire about the facts of your case, provide our case evaluation and initial recommendations. You are also encouraged to ask us about our qualifications, both in representing seriously injured clients, and as cell phone auto accident lawyers knowledgeable about the opportunities for establishing employer liability and with the strategies for investigating the case to elicit the evidence that the other motorist was on his cell phone at the time of the accident, and that he was engaged in a business call.

Our trial lawyers and cell phone auto accident attorneys welcome the opportunity to bring our education and experience to bare in serious injury cases, including cases involving paraplegia or quadriplegia or other spinal cord injury, debilitating internal injury or orthopedic injuries, arm and leg amputation, or traumatic brain injury, TBI cases. A lower leg amputation case is described in the left column of this page, under Most Recent Jury Verdicts and Settlements, a case prosecuted by one of our Group lawyers, in which he established the liability of the employer for the negligence of its employee. It is important that the serious injury attorney consider all the various means of establishing liability against "deep pocket" defendants, as in the case referred to, in which the Group lawyer through discovery found that the motorist who caused the accident was transporting tools from his home to the work site, overcoming the general rule that accidents occurring during commutes to work do not qualify to establish employer vicarious liability. In most cases such evidence may not be found, and so the attorney must investigate the case broadly. And one additional tool in the arsenal of the cell phone car accident lawyer is his education and research into the scientific literature and then his appreciation for the opportunities to establish employer liability where the other car driver can be determined to have been engaged in a business call at the time of the accident.

Our Law Group cell phone auto accident lawyers have extensively researched the epidemiological and controlled experimental literature substantiating the information provided above with regard to the epidemic of cell phone use while driving, the effect of cell conversation leading to DUI level driving impairment and the 4 fold increased risk of causing an accident, the scientific literature demonstrating the mechanism of impairment as deriving from the conversation, and hence the conclusions of the scientists that conversation by handheld and hands-free cell phones result in the identical driving impairment, and the even greater increased risks associated with texting while driving. We have written scientific review articles on the subject published and republished in a number of forums, and we have participated also in educating safety lobbyists on the scientific literature, which they have in turn presented at legislative hearings seek comprehensive cell phone bans prohibiting the use of any cell phone while driving, handheld or hands-free. We consider that the epidemic of cell phone use while driving is the largest single factor responsible for 25 percent of all accidents, and hence 25 percent of all injuries sustained in accidents, 25 percent of all quadriplegia, paraplegia, internal injury, orthopedic injury, leg and arm amputation, and traumatic brain injury - and so our cell phone car accident attorneys want to do all they can to raise public attention and raise the attention of our state legislatures to bring an end to this tragic societal experiment with cell phone use while driving.

Our cell phone auto accident lawyers will consider the cases of seriously injured auto accident victims in every state from Florida to Hawaii, from California to New York, from Texas, Alabama and Georgia to Alaska,; our cell phone car accident attorneys will represent clients who suffered quadriplegia or paraplegia or other spinal cord injuries, internal injury, orthopedic injury, arm or leg amputation and traumatic brain injury, TBI in Arkansas, Arizona, and Colorado to Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho and Illinois; we are knowledgeable both about the investigative techniques to establish cell phone use and the legal theories to establish employer vicarious liability where the other driver was involved in a business clients in considering cases arising in Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Massachusetts to Maryland, Maine, Michigan, cell phone auto accident lawyer for Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, cell phone car accident attorney for New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania Rhode Island and South Dakota to Tennessee, Utah, Virginia Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin West Virginia and Wyoming. Again, our cell phone auto accident lawyers welcome you to contact us for a free consultation.

*Most recent Jury Verdict or Settlement:

$2,500,000.00 Settlement in Contested Liability Motorcycle Accident. Below Knee Amputation. The Settlement was Obtained after we Established that the Defendant Driver was Operating his Vehicle in the Course and Scope of his Employment, and after Naming the Driver's Employer as a Defendant and Determining that the Employer had Multimillion Dollar Liability and Excess Insurance Coverage.

*The results obtained in the cases listed were dependent upon the facts of the cases, and the results will differ in other cases based on different facts

Food Poisoning Lawyers for E coli HUS & Listeriosis Cases. Attorneys for California and National Outbreaks.

We are the Premier California Food Poisoning Lawyers, Ecoli HUS and Listeriosis Attorneys, also representing victims of food poisoning outbreaks nationally.

Spotlight: Our Most Recent Food Poisoning Settlement:: One of our E coli HUS Attorneys obtained one of the largest multimillion dollar settlements ever achieved in an Ecoli HUS case, obtained October 1, 2006.

Consult the Food Poisoning Lawyers page or the E. coli HUS Attorneys page for additional information about the stellar qualifications of our California food poisoning attorney Nick Allis and and food and drug produce liability lawyer Ray Henke.

* Name:

* Phone:

* E-mail:

Describe Your Case:

The Law Group - An Affiliation of Trial Lawyers Serving the Seriously Injured. Our Auto Accident Lawyers, Motorcycle and Big Rig Truck Accident Lawyers Will Consider Representing the Seriously Injured in Most States, from New York to California, from Texas, Georgia and Florida to Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania, from Alaska to Hawaii, and in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Our Law Group was first conceived in the 1990's when attorney Henke was serving as a Governor of the 5th largest trial lawyer association in the United States and regularly met with the officers and Governors of most of the state trial lawyers associations, including to develop strategies to defeat insurance industry efforts to obtain "tort reform laws" -- laws which would have significantly curtailed the rights of the injured to be fully compensated, for example by placing "caps" on general damages. Many of us came to gain high regard for the professionalism of others of the trial lawyers from across the county. And where it was common that we would be contacted by potential clients from other states we would often recommend or refer the potential clients to lawyers in our loosely affiliated group or to other attorneys who we considered best situated or qualified to consider the cases. In personal injury litigation where a particular lawyer already had a "leg up" on a particular type of case, for example an auto defect case, with his experts already developed, we might recommend that the potential client might save substantial litigation costs or otherwise be best served by the other trial attorney. We also will sometimes cooperate with others of our serious injury trial lawyers, either in sharing documents and other evidence developed in previous cases against the same defendant, as in product liability cases, or sometimes by helping to identify and prepare an expert for another lawyer in another state. Sometimes we may offer to serve as local counsel where an out of state attorney appears as trial counsel pro hac vice, or we may assist with appeals in our states for another trial lawyer where we may be more familiar with the issues or appellate litigation. This is the way our informal affiliation of lawyers grew with experienced trial lawyers in most of the states. Our auto accident, motorcycle and big rig truck accident lawyers will consider representing potential clients who have suffered serious or catastrophic injuries in most states of the nation, from California to New York, from Texas, Georgia and Florida to Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania, from Alaska and Hawaii to Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

It is every potential litigant's right to ask about the credentials of any lawyer whom he would consider to represent him. Decisions with regard to the best lawyer for you should not be made on the basis of attorney advertisements. Rather such decisions should be made on the basis of a comparison of the credentials of the lawyers whom the potential client would consider to represent him. Our Law Group attorneys provide free consultations and we welcome your inquiries with regard to our credentials as serious injury trial lawyers and as experienced in our practice areas specifically relevant to your case, including as big rig truck accident lawyers, and we invite you also to ask any additional questions about our qualifications that you may deem important in the attorney you will choose to represent you.

It is beyond the scope of this web site and page to attempt to do justice to the credentials of all of our Law Group lawyers, and so on the web site subject matter pages and here we have limited our discussion of specific credentials to those of Group attorney Henke, as was most convenient, given that he is the author of most of the practice areas pages, which we hope will provide greater information with regard to the sophisticated trial strategy that qualified and experienced lawyers bring to the prosecution of the broad description of cases discussed. As it pertains on this Cell Phone Accident Lawyers page, Mr. Henke wrote his first scientific review article on the subject of the dangers of driving while conversing by cell phone in 2006 and has published on the subject in many forums, also involved in legislative efforts throughout the country to attempt to obtain comprehensive cell phone laws. Because it would be beyond the scope of our page limits to discuss the significant trial victories and settlements of all our group members, in the left column of this page it is discussed only the jury verdicts of this one Group lawyer, except that, given that he doesn't practice food poisoning law, a recent E. coli HUS case and settlement obtained by another of the Group members, Nick Allis, is discussed. The cases cited are furthermore intended to describe the type of trial advocacy that can be brought to bare in the various auto and motorcycle and big rig truck accident cases, medical malpractice, drug product liability and food poisoning cases described, not to stress the amounts of the settlements and jury verdicts, because as noted in the left column, the damages recovered in any particular case are dependent upon the facts of each case, including the nature and extent of the client's injury, and his general and special economic damages.

So that the reader may consider some of the types of credentials that trial attorneys, including auto accident lawyers, motorcycle attorneys and big rig truck accident lawyers, may have, among others, in determining a lawyer's suitability for a particular case - from lawyer directory legal ability and ethics ratings to elected office in state trial lawyers associations, awards and recognition by the attorney's peers, such as trial lawyer awards, education, training and experience in the particular practice areas, such as auto accident, motorcycle or big rig truck accident cases or medical malpractice or pharmaceutical product liability or food poisoning or premises liability or elder abuse litigation, as examples; articles published on specific legal subject matter, or experience serving as class action lawyers, as might pertinent in some cases, or examples of the attorney's appellate advocacy, we provide the specific credentials of attorney Henke, however only by way of example of one Group member's qualifications. By providing his credentials he does not claim that his credentials are superior to those of any other Group lawyer or any other attorney in his or any other state. He will not accept cases arising outside the state of California, and will only appear as trial counsel in pending litigation in another state at the request of an attorney in the other state, where the attorney requests that he serve as trial counsel in the pending litigation, with the consent of the client, and only where the trial court judge in the out of state litigation consents to his appearance as trial counsel pro hac vice. His credentials, however, might serve the purpose sought to be achieved here, only to suggest what might be some of the questions that any prospective client may want to ask the lawyers in the state in which his cause of action arose whom he would consider to represent him, along with all the other questions that the prospective client deems important in selecting the attorney best qualified and experienced to prosecute his or her potential litigation.

For example, the first of attorney Henke's credentials discussed below is his Martindale & Hubbell rating. And indeed, often as lawyers consider recommending or referring clients to lawyers in other states they will commonly consult the lawyers' Martindale & Hubbell "legal ability" and "ethical standards" ratings. Martindale & Hubbell is the most respected attorney rating directory in the United States. The ratings are most commonly based upon interviews with Judges before whom the lawyer has appeared and interviews with other prominent lawyers in the attorney's community.

Law Group attorney, Henke and his law firm are "AV" rated by Martindale and Hubbell, the highest lawyer "legal ability" rating ("A") and highest attorney "general ethical standards" rating ("V"). The "A" is defined by Martindalee & Hubbell to mean "very high to preeminent" in "legal ability" and the "V" is defined to mean "very high" in "general ethical standards". According to Martindale & Hubbell: "AV Peer Review Rating shows that a lawyer has reached the height of professional excellence. He or she has usually practiced law for many years, and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity." Martindale & Hubbell also assigns numerical ratings, from 1.0 to 5.0, with 4.5 to 5.0 satisfying the criteria for an "AV" rating. Henke's numerical rating is 5.0.

He is recognized as one of the "Top Lawyers in America," a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, commonly referred to as "the most prestigious group of trial lawyers in the United States."

He is a former Governor of LATLA, the 5th Largest Trial Lawyer Association in the United States, elected and reelected to the position, year after year, by LATLA's large trial lawyer membership.

He was nominated by LATLA for the coveted and prestigious "Trial Lawyer of the Year" Award. He was also given its President's Award, and was given the privilege to serve as the Editor-in-Chief of the Association's Law Journal, "The Advocate.".

His cases, trial work and victories in "test" litigation, including medical and drug litigation have been the subject of substantial legal commentary in respected state and national legal journals from the National Law Journal to the California Lawyer.

His cases and trial work have also been the subject of substantial legitimate news coverage from front page articles in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, from the Washington Post to the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner. He has appeared to discuss his cases on national legitimate television news, Tom Brokaw's Evening News, CNN; his cases, trial strategies and successes have also been described in 2 books.

He has also testified before Congress at the invitation of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives specifically with regard to his successful prosecution of certain medical and drug "test" cases, and his contention that punitive damages are an important tool in assuring that drugs are safe and that health care providers, including physicians and hospitals, adhere to the medical standards of care.

He has also published over 30 legal articles in professional journals from "Trial" the Journal of the American Trial Lawyers Association, "The Forum," the Journal of the California Trial Lawyers Association, Consumer Attorneys Association of California, and the "Advocate," the Journal of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, including , "Mandatory Class Action," Trial Magazine, ATLA; Henke with Professor Dean Neubauer, "Medical Malpractice Legislation," Trial Magazine, ATLA, "Negligence Per Se and Drug Product Liability Cases," Advocate, LATLA; "Statute of Limitations/Delayed Discovery Rule in Drug Product Liability Litigation," Advocate, LATLA, "Amending the Complaint at Trial to Add Punitive Damages, "Advocate," LATLA; Henke with Inner Circle Member James Butler, "The Right of Counsel to Speak to Press on Pending Civil Litigation: First Amendment Protections Reaffirmed," Forum, CTLA; "Falsification of Medical Records: How to Establish it and how best to handle it," Advocate, LATLA; "Medical Malpractice, Overcoming Common Defenses in Uncommon Medical Malpractice Cases," Forum CTLA; "Children’s Rights v. Government Claims Provisions," Advocate, LATLA; "Statistics," Advocate, LATLA; "Defendant's Counsel's Sub-rosa Interview with Plaintiff's Treating Physicians," Advocate, LATLA; "Special Defenses, "Advocate, LATLA; "Framing Economic Damages," Advocate, LATLA; "Character Evidence and the Ostensible Secondary Purpose, " Advocate, LATLA; "Legislation," Advocate, LALTA; "Proving Economic Damages of Undocumented Aliens, " Advocate, LATLA; "Initiative Checklist," Advocate, LATLA; "Selecting the Medical Negligence Case," Advocate, LATLA; "The Reasonable Suspicion Standard in Drug Product Liability Cases," Advocate, LATLA; "Use of Rebuttal Expert Testimony at Trial,"Advocate, LATLA; "Proving Negligent Failure to Diagnose a Rare Disease," Advocate, LATLA; "Breach of the Physicians Obligations of Confidentiality," Advocate, LATLA; "Taking Expert Depositions," Advocate, LATLA; "Jury Selection," Advocate, LATLA; "Epidemiology and Applied Statistics," Advocate, LATLA; "Recovery for Increased Susceptibility for Future Medical Disease," Advocate, LATLA; "Strict Liability," Advocate, LATLA; "Contention Interrogatories," Advocate, LATLA; "Ex Parte Interviews with Plaintiff's Treating Physicians," Advocate, LATLA; "The High Cost of Forum Depositions," Advocate, LATLA. Full Bibliography Available Upon Request.

He has also obtained extraordinary published state and federal appellate results, including in sophisticated medical and pharmaceutical product liability litiagtion effecting lasting, significant changes in the law favorable to his clients and other plaintiff litigants. An attorney's experience in appellate advocacy is not only useful on appeals, but may be important in some cases to overturn before or during trial a bad ruling of the trial judge that guts the case or deprives the client of an element of his damages. To take one example, in the context of pre-trial motions a Judge struck Henke's clients' punitive damage claims relying of newly enacted tort reform legislation requiring that in cases against health care providers the punitive damage claim must not be stated in the original complaint, as was the practice when the complaint was filed prior to enactment of the law, but by amendment to the complaint based upon evidence of the validity of the punitive damage claim. Henke obtained a stay of the trial to take an extraordinary writ to the appellate court, obtaining an immediate decision from the Court of Appeals ordering the trial court to reinstate the clients' punitive damage claims, and then he went forward to obtain in addition to compensatory damage awards for his clients, a $1.6 million jury verdict against one of the defendants.

To take another example, after more than 1000 federal cases involving children who had suffered serious birth defects were assigned by the federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to a federal Judge sitting in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the District Court Judge in Ohio certified a "mandatory class action" binding together the 1000 birth defect cases assigned to his court and all the other thousands of birth defect cases involving the drug filed nationwide, including those filed independently in the state courts. The pharmaceutical product liability lawyers in Henke's office had over 40 cases involving exposure to the drug, most of them involving children born with severe limb defects, and had developed an extensive list of experts fully prepared to testify in the individual pharmaceutical product liability trials against the manufacturer. The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel Committee and the attorneys for the drug manufacturer then settled the mandatory class litigation involving the thousands of children born with birth defects nationwide for $120,000,000. The federal District Court Judge then issued an order approving the settlement. Group attorney Henke and his other firm members considered the settlement to be woefully inadequate to compensate the many thousands of children with serious birth defects for even the smallest fraction of the fair measure of the value of their injuries and damages. So Henke filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit challenging the District Court's certification of the mandatory class action and settlement. Attorney Henke's petition for writ of mandamus was successful in obtaining the United States Court of Appeals' order instructing the District Court Judge to decertify the mandatory class and void the class settlement.

Henke had argued that "mandatory class action" offended the individual client's right to the attorney of his choice, and control over his individual litigation, arguing that the sole legitimate exception that the Court of Appeals should recognize should be that mandatory class action might be justified in the rare instance where the defendant had a demonstrated limited fund of assets and insurance insufficient to pay all claims brought against it, proof that the large manufacturer in this drug product liability class action clearly could not and had not substantiated. The United States Court of Appeals adopted Henke's arguments, issuing a landmark published decision severely restricting the availability of mandatory class actions, with the sole exception mentioned above. The decision altered the law of class action in an enduring way, and now almost all class actions must be framed as "voluntary class actions" where each plaintiff has the opportunity to opt out, choose his own attorney to represent him and pursue his individual litigation independently if he so chooses. The case indeed applies to all mass tort litigation, and all class actions, rendering mandatory class action essentially unavailable except in very rare class litigation.

Mr. Henke received his Juris Doctorate degree from the University of San Francisco, served on the USF Law Review, received the American Jurisprudence Award for Civil Procedure, and interned at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit while in Law School.

Martindale & Hubbell ratings, elected offices in trial lawyers associations, awards and honors from professional organizations, recognition in professional journals, publications in trial lawyer journals, significant appellate victories, and experience preparing and presenting to settlement judges and juries cases in the legal subject area of the potential client's case, as well as the relevant settlements and jury verdicts the lawyer has obtained as the lead trial attorney, are all credentials that a potential client may wish to consider in comparing the qualifications of the lawyers whom he would consider to represent him, among such other qualifications as the client deems important in the lawyer who will represent him. We strongly recommend that decisions with regard to the choice of a lawyer be made on the basis of legal qualifications, and we welcome all prospective clients to inquire about our Group lawyers' qualifications.

Our serious injury auto accident, motorcycle and big rig truck accident attorneys welcome you to contact us with regard to your case. We provide free consultations. You may submit the "Contact" form and one of our car, motorcycle or big rig truck accident lawyers will call you to discuss your case, offer his initial case evaluation, and provide his initial recommendations. Our auto accident lawyers and motorcycle and big rig truck accident attorneys will consider serious injury cases including traumatic brain injury, TBI, spinal cord injury, quadriplegia, paraplegia, internal injury, orthopedic injuries, leg or arm amputation. Our serious injury auto accident lawyers, motorcycle attorneys and big rig truck accident lawyers will consider representing seriously injured potential clients in most states, from New York to California, from Texas, Georgia and Florida to Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania, from Alaska to Hawaii, and in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming. We welcome the opportunity to speak with you.

Our Accident Lawyers Provide the Following Attorney Disclaimers For All States of the United States, Including New York to California, from Texas, Georgia and Florida to Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania, from Alaska to Hawaii, and in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Please read the full Terms and conditions on our Required Legal Notices page. The following is a synopsis:

Please understand that this Cell Phone Accident Lawyers page, and all other pages on this site are provided for informational purposes only, describing the various practice areas discussed. The content of the pages, including this Cell Phone Truck Accident Lawyers page, are not intended as legal advice and should not be interpreted as legal advice; and in particular the content should not be interpreted as legal advice as to the potential merits or viability your particular case or any particular case.

Our personal injury lawyers provide free consultations to those who contact us, but again, you must understand that if we are unable to accept your case, that will be merely a function of our law firm specific intake guidelines and should not be interpreted as a conclusion on our part that your case lacks merit or that it is not viable litigation.

Furthermore, please understand that merely reviewing this site, this web page or any of the other pages of this site, or submitting a case evaluation request, or speaking with Mr. Henke or another attorney does not and cannot create an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Henke or his law office. The only way that an attorney-client relationship can be created with Mr. Henke or his law firm is by a written attorney-client retainer agreement signed both by the client and Mr. Henke. If a case does not fall within our office intake guidelines or if it arises in another state, we may recommend or refer you to another lawyer, but please understand also that our recommending or referring you to another lawyer does not create an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Henke or his law firm. We do not supervise any litigation undertaken by any other lawyers, including attorneys or law firms to which we may recommend or refer a client. The recommendation or referral of potential client to another lawyer does not give rise to any duty or obligation or responsibility on the part of Mr. Henke or the Henke Law Office. Furthermore, every client must independently investigate the credentials of any lawyer whom he would consider to represent him, and the Henke law office does not under any circumstances accept liability for errors or ommissions of other lawyers or any other liability including in connection with his recommendation or referral of the client to another lawyer. Our Law Group, as set forth above, is merely a loose affilliation of lawyers, we are not a law firm or a partnership or association of lawyers.

It is the intent of our Group personal injury lawyers in framing this page, and the content of this Serious Injury Attorneys web site, to comply with all laws and attorney ethical rules in all states in which such rules exist. Specific Rules applicable in particular states are set forth below and on the Required Legal Notices Page of this web site, which we invite you to consider, and incorporate on this web page.

By virtue of the characteristics of Internet communication of lawyer advertisements generally, including by the ability of persons to view the advertisement beyond state borders, and indeed worldwide, the following notices are provided for all states of the United States. The state laws and state bar rules and other laws governing Internet communication generally and lawyer advertisements in particular are constantly changing. Mr. Henke, has made an effort on this general informational web page and on the Required Legal Notices page to comply with all the applicable state laws, state bar rules and other rules governing lawyers and attorneys in anticipation that this lawyer advertisement might be viewed by citizens of any state of the United States.. This attorney advertisement, authored by attorney Henke, is not intended for those whose potential cases do not have a nexus with the state of California, e.g., by virtue the cause of action arising in the state or a defendant's incorporation in the state or the location of its principal place of business in the state.

The following are particular admonitions intended to comply with the laws and rules of the identified states:

Alabama: No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Colorado: Colorado does not certify attorneys as specialists in any field.

Florida: The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.

Iowa: The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Memberships and offices in legal fraternities and legal societies, technical and professional licenses, and memberships in scientific, technical and professional associations and societies of law or field of practice do not mean that a lawyer is a specialist or expert in a field of law, nor do they mean that such a lawyer is necessarily any more expert or competent than any other lawyer. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered. This notice is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

Kentucky and Oregon: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT.

Mississippi: The Mississippi Supreme Court advises that a decision on legal services is important and should not be based solely on advertisements.

Missouri: Neither the Supreme Court of Missouri nor the Missouri Bar reviews or approves certifying organizations or specialist designations.

Nevada: The State Bar of Nevada does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert.

New Mexico: LAWYER ADVERTISEMENT.

Tennessee: None of the attorneys in this firm are certified as a Civil Trial, Criminal Trial, Business Bankruptcy, Consumer Bankruptcy, Creditor's Rights, Medical Malpractice, Legal Malpractice, Accounting Malpractice, Estate Planning or Elder Law specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization. Certification as a specialist in all other listed areas is not currently available in Tennessee.

Texas: Unless otherwise stated, Henke Law Office attorneys claiming certification in an area of law are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

Wyoming: The Wyoming State Bar does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Anyone considering a lawyer should independently investigate the lawyer's credentials and ability, and not rely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise.

For all those states which consider informational lawyer web pages to be advertisements, please take notice, this web site and web page is an advertisement. Mr. Henke considers the foregoing disclaimers to be good for all to consider, including that decisions with regard to your choice of lawyer should not be made based on the content of attorney advertisements, and the disclaimers in this section and on the Required Legal Notices page should be considered by those seeking counsel in all states: The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon attorney advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. The lawyers of the Law Group and Henke Law Office state: “Before you decide on an attorney to represent you, to the extent that you may consider this office, please ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.” We do not hold ourselves out to be specialists in states which certify specialists. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered.

This web site and the instant page are not intended by Henke for the purpose of soliciting any prospective clients in any state except California for the commencement of any civil action. If attorney Henke were to serve as an attorney in a civil lawsuit in any of the other state, he would do so only on the request of an attorney who was a member of the Bar of the other state, who would serve as the local attorney in the litigation, only in connection with pending litigation, with the consent of the client, and only with the permission of the state court for Henke to appear as the attorney for the client pro hac vice. We do not solicit clients in any such state; we will only consder inquiries from attorneys in these other states who consider that they might benefit from our expertise.

Cell Phone Auto Accident Lawyers New York California Florida Texas Illinois Pennsylvania Georgia Ohio Attorneys