I just received a question in response to a blog I wrote about new attendant care rates for family members in Michigan. Our reader, Tiffany, asks, “Is there a web site where I can look up the current hourly rates for at-home attendant care?”

Here’s my response:

Thank you for your question, Tiffany. Many people have never even heard of attendant care, which is an important No-Fault insurance benefit that is available to people who have been seriously injured in a car accident or truck accident.  Our lawyers explain what attendant care is by how it sounds. Attendant care (also referred to as nursing care services) refers to activities of daily living that you are unable to perform yourself due to the severity of your personal injuries. Therefore, you require the help of someone else (the attendant) to provide the care.

One thing that makes attendant care cases so difficult is that there is not a readily accessible definition of what exactly attendant care (AC) is. Many people have never even heard of this no-fault benefit. To put it simply, our car accident attorneys say attendant care benefits (also referred to as nursing services) are “activities of daily living.”

Adding to the misunderstanding of attendant care, many Michigan insurance companies are not exactly forthcoming about telling people who have been injured in auto accidents that they’re entitled to it.  Some insurance companies just completely lie and deny attendant care exists — even when asked directly by their own severely injured customer, or the injured person’s caregiver.

Car Accident Lawyer Highlights Court Trend Requiring Permanent Injuries for Plaintiffs to Win

I’d like to remind my fellow car accident lawyers that judges in Michigan are forgetting injuries do not need to be permanent to be serious. This is exemplified in O’Keefe v. Auto Club, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals win for an auto accident victim who sustained neck and back injuries.

I make note of it because although the plaintiff wins, this case perpetuates the problem of seemingly requiring that an impairment is permanent in order for it to qualify as a serious impairment of body function. In O’Keefe, the fact that saves the day for the plaintiff’s claim is that her residual impairments “appear to be permanent.”

From left, Steven M. Gursten, Judge William J. Giovan and attorney Ed Stein

I received a comment yesterday from retired Chief Judge of Wayne County Circuit Court, William J. Giovan, after my letter on Johnson v. Wausau.

Judge Giovan is a true intellectual and has an excellent grasp of the rules of evidence.  In fact, I once invited him to speak to the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association on evidentiary issues car accident lawyers face in trial.  Judge Giovan also knew my grandfather, and on more than one occasion, has shared memories of him as a lawyer while we were in his chambers.  It isn’t every judge that knows and cares about three generations of one family.

Michigan Lawyers Weekly, The Oakland Press and the Detroit Legal News recently published my letter on Johnson v. Wausau Insurance Co., a case about an insurance company adjuster who lied to save money from paying attendant care insurance benefits to the caregivers of a 10-month-old girl with a severe traumatic brain injury from a car accident — and got away with it. Well, my letter has sparked a little debate, mainly from an attorney Daniel J. Bernard.  Mr. Bernard disagreed with my opinion of the case, which now allows insurance adjusters to legally lie to their customers in order to avoid paying no-fault insurance benefits. As an attendant care attorney in Michigan, I thought it was one of the most disturbing cases I’ve ever read. I feel so strongly about the horrible public policy this case creates for Michigan residents, that I wanted to respond to Mr. Bernard. My rebuttal was printed Monday on the front page of the Detroit Legal News as follows. Please click on the title to see the story in its newspaper form.

Last week, The Oakland Press and Detroit Legal News published my letter on Johnson v. Wausau Insurance Co., a case in which an insurance company adjuster lied to save money from paying attendant care insurance benefits to the caregiver of a 10-month-old girl with traumatic brain injuries from a car accident, and got away with it. I was so outraged by this case that I felt compelled to write about it.

Johnson v. Wausau is truly one of the most disturbing cases I have ever read, and the public policy it creates for Michigan residents could not be worse.  In Johnson, an insurance company deliberately lied to save money from paying insurance benefits to a 10-month-old little girl with catastrophic traumatic brain injuries from a car accident, continued this fraud for 16 years and got away with it. After this tragic case, insurance company adjusters can now deliberately and intentionally lie to their own policy holders to save money - legally.

Ask any Michigan lawyer that handles attendant care cases, and he’ll tell you there’s been a terrible game at the hands of insurance companies going on for many years. When people suffer serious personal injuries from car accidents and truck accidents, they are entitled to attendant care — also referred to as nursing services — as part of their no-fault insurance personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The problem is that many insurance companies responsible for paying for attendant care do not inform people they’re entitled to receive attendant care in the first place.

In my previous blog, “Crotch Rocket” Motorcycle Death Rates Continue to Rise in Michigan, I discussed the extreme danger of young, inexperienced crotch rocket drivers who daringly dart down Michigan roads at speeds exceeding 150 miles per hour. For supersport drivers who cause accidents, the legal outcomes regarding a third-party tort case for injuries and pain and suffering are generally unfavorable — especially compared to those of car or truck drivers.

However, the no-fault attendant care lawyers of Michigan Auto Law have been able to successfully help many motorcyclists — even those who cause motorcycle accidents — receive important no-fault attendant care benefits.

On Friday, June 6, 2008, Michigan Auto Law lawyers Steven Gursten and David Christensen will be speaking at the Michigan No-Fault Institute Seminar in Southfield, Michigan.   This seminar is presented through the Michigan Association for Justice, for lawyers who handle car accident injury cases, truck accident cases, and attendant care and other no fault first party cases stemming from motor vehicle accidents.
 
Steve will be performing a live closing argument demonstration in a sample motor vehicle accident case where the plaintiff has suffered a traumatic brain injury.   The defense will claim the car accident did not cause a brain injury and that the plaintiff is malingering. 
 
David will be lecturing and performing a live jury selection demonstration in a “PIP case” involving a claim for Michigan attendant care benefits.  Attendant care no-fault benefits are available under Michigan’s No-Fault laws for people who suffer severe or catastrophic injury from automobile accidents.
 
Finally, Steve will also be presenting this week at the Association of Interstate Truck Lawyers of America on May 30, 31 and June 1st in St. Louis, Missouri.  Steve and Larry Gursten are both on the Board of Governors, representing the State of Michigan, in the AITLA.  Steve is also the chair of the American Association for Justice Interstate Truck Litigation Group.  The seminar will cover important topics for lawyers throughout the United States who handle serious truck accident injury cases, including “expanding theories of liability” and “damages” in truck accident litigation.