Specifically, beginning in 1996, Sanofi and its affiliated companies / subsidiaries promoted a marketing scheme designed to push off-label uses for taxotere that were never formally approved by the FDA. An off label use refers to medication that is being utilized outside the approved uses on the FDA approved label. Specifically, Sanofi is alleged to have instructed their employees to lie about the safety and efficacy of Taxotere, so that the market for taxotere would expand into the off label market. Secondly, Sanofi is alleged to have engaged in a kickback scheme with doctors such that physicians would be encouraged to prescribe taxotere. The qui tam lawsuit has highlighted a very sophisticated scheme of bribery to push sales of taxotere to almost $1.5 billion dollars in 2004 alone. As a result of their sophisticated marketing and bribery tactics, thousands of women have become victims of toxic chemotherapy with taxotere. The most prominent and debilitating side effect from such toxic chemotherapy was alopecia caused from cancer treatment.

While temporary hair loss is expected to be a side effect of chemotherapy, permanent hair loss is most certainly an unacceptable side effect. Using false marketing materials and incomplete studies, Sanofi Aventis is alleged to have duped the public into believe taxotere was safer and more effective than its rival taxol and the defendants conveniently omitted warnings of permanent hair loss. Thousands of women mistakenly believed their hair would grow back only to learn the agonizing news of taxotere permanent hair loss. Sanofi Aventis is alleged to have been extremely aware that the rate of permanent hair loss associated with taxotere greatly exceeded any permanent hair loss associated with taxol.

To experience permanent baldness is an extremely agonizing experience, adding injury to insult for women undergoing breast cancer therapy. There are not only mental and emotional damages associated with permanent alopecia from taxotere, but economic loss as well in the form of inability to return to work as a result of suffering severe psychological trauma. Taxol, which did not cause permanent hair loss, was always available as an alternative chemotherapy drug for breast cancer. Yet women were simply not given that choice, because the warnings on debilitating taxotere side effects were effectively masked by a greedy pharmaceutical manufacturer. No woman given the information regarding taxotere and the equally effective taxol alternative, would have chosen taxotere over taxol, and risked permanent hair loss. Sanofi is alleged to have deceived women with sophisticated kickbacks to physicians that resulted in women believing taxotere was more effective at treating their breast cancer than taxol. The breast cancer chemotherapy market contained multiple drugs that were not only more effective than taxotere but also did not carry the massive risks of permanent hair loss. Please contact Baseluos Law firm to discuss your options regarding a chemotherapy drug lawsuit.

Bristol Myer Squibbs manufactures paclitaxel (taxol) , the major competitor to taxotere. However, Sanofi designed taxotere as a highly potent taxane alternative to its rival taxol. Since 1989, Sanofi through its subsidiary Aventis controlled and developed all patents related to taxotere. Sanofi enrolled patients in clinical testing trials beginning in 1990. This fact is critical because Sanofi is alleged to have withheld information and data from those tests from doctors (especially oncologists), patients, and the FDA. It should be noted that in 1994, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee panel unanimously recommended the rejection of taxotere, because the drug was deemed to be much more toxic than Bristol’s taxol, which had previously received FDA approval. The FDA recommended more testing on the side effects of docetaxel , the chemical name for taxotere. In May 1996, FDA finally approved taxotere, limiting use of taxotere to treat advanced or metastatic breast cancer after failure of prior chemotherapy.

After the initial FDA approval, Sanofi sought approval for expanded applications of taxotere. Specifically, Sanofi and its subsidiaries now claimed their drug was a more effective chemotherapy drug against breast cancer. Specifically, they now claimed taxotere was more effective than its rival taxol, and they reiterated such misleading comparisons in their marketing. Today, post market surveillance has shown Sanofi’s claims of superior efficacy to be fraudulent. A 2008 study in the New England Journal of Medicine measured the efficacy of taxol and taxotere and concluded that taxol was a more effective chemotherapy drug than taxotere. Despite overwhelming statements in a reputable medical journal, Sanofi continued to proclaim taxotere’s superiority. Their actions led to a stern warning letter from the FDA in 2009 in which the FDA cited Sanofi’s unsubstantiated superiority claims and overstatement of the efficacy of Taxotere. The FDA found Sanofi Aventis in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Today, Michael Baseluos is a taxotere lawyer actively pursuing cases for taxotere victims who have suffered permanent and disfiguring hair loss in women. Breast cancer patients with alopecia after undergoing chemotherapy with taxotere are eligible for compensation. Sanofi Aventis failed to issue previously undisclosed warnings until December 2015. The original taxotere warning labels misled breast cancer survivors into believing they would recover their hair loss, when in fact there is permanent alopecia from taxotere. The FDA forced Sanofi to update their label to reflect the side effect of permanent alopecia after chemotherapy treatment. Since its first clinical trials, there is deep suspicion that Sanofi has know for almost two (2) decades about taxotere causing permanent hair loss. A little known fact is that Sanofi updated its warning labels of cancer treatment hair loss in Europe in 2005 and in Canada in 2012. Those same warnings were not revealed to US customers until December 2015. Taxotere Permanent Hair Loss (Alopecia) cases are now part of Multi District Litigation (MDL) in the US District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana assigned to Judge Englehardt, Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Lousiana.

Rather than being upfront about the lack of an ability to reverse a xarelto bleedout, defendants such as Jannsen Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, and Johnson & Johnson chose instead to hide this very important fact in the overdose section of the label. The unsuspecting Xarelto user is then subject to the blood thinner side effects that lead to life-threatening complications which lead to death.

The defendants, who are currently facing lawsuits in the Eastern District of Louisiana and Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, are also alleged to have duped medical personnel including ER doctors and surgeons, as well as hematology and cardiac specialists. There are over fourteen thousand (14,000) lawsuits in the federal courts alone, and over one thousand (1,000) cases in the Philadelphia Court alone. One of the key differences between whether to file in the federal courts in Louisiana versus the Philadelphia Court of Common Please is the issue of ischemic strokes. This is a new condition in addition to the uncontrolled bleeding found in those injured from xarelto. An ischemic stroke is the result of a blood clot that clogs an artery leading to the brain. Such blood clots are often associated with the buildup of plaque in the arteries, a condition we often refer to as atherosclerosis. Ischemic strokes can be caused by clots in the neck (carotid artery) and other major arteries. While the Eastern District of Louisanca is not accepting xarelto stroke lawsuits, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is accepting claims of stroke caused by rivaroxaban.

Another key difference is that the Philadelphia court is allowing efficacy claims on blood clot injuries that xarelto should have prevented. The argument is that due to xarelto’s one time per day dosing, the patient does not have the anticoagulant protection needed to get them through to the next dose, leaving them extremely vulnerable to xarelto bleedouts. The 1x per day design was simply a marketing ploy designed to help Jannsen, Bayer, and Johnson & Johnson get an advantage over the makers of Paradaxa and Eliquis, which need to be taken multiple times on a daily basis.

If you have a family member killed by xarelto, Michael Baseluos can help. A xarelto lawsuit can help get you or a family member injured by xarelto the compensation you deserve. To date, there have been over one hundred fifty (150) deaths from xarelto. With over $1 Billion in sales and well over a million prescriptions, Xarelto is a ticking time bomb for many patients who receive the drug to treat complications that might arise from atrial fibrillation. The FDA has received well over 2,000 complaints concerning side effects of taking xarelto, reflecting uncontrolled bleeding, hemorrhaging and death. Other side effects include gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, stroke, and death. Baseluos Law Firm (BLF) is assisting citizens nationwide in obtaining sizeable xarelto lawsuit settlement amounts.

The most commonly proposed mechanism for the development of autoimmune disease is molecular mimicry. This is a strong theory advocated by neurologist experts in arguing for the role of flu vaccination in the development of GBS. Molecular mimicry refers to a situation where the pathogen and host (ie. the human body) share nearly identical antigens, which induces an antibody and T cell immune response that is cross reactive, meaning the antibody reacts with similar sites across a wide spectrum of proteins. There are multiple ways in which an immune response can become cross-reactive. The strongest evidence for the molecular mimicry hypothesis has come from discoveries in research with jejuni strains, the most common pathogen associated with GBS.

A neurologist expert in a vaccine causation case will argue that it is substantially probable that the influenza vaccine triggered the immunological reaction that causes GBS or variant Miller Fisher Syndrome by molecular mimicry or non specific activation of the immune system. The immune system could recognize the vaccine and the victim may share nearly identical antigens, which induces an antibody and T cell immune response that is cross reactive. Many Special Masters, who review and decide GBS flu cases filed in the Court of Federal Claims, are aware of molecular mimicry, and the theory is generally widely accepted as a basis for causation. Lately, the Department of Health and Human Services has accepted the link between flu vaccine and GBS provided there is no evidence of an alterative form of causation such as a gastrointestinal or upper respiratory illness. Consequently, GBS flu cases are proceeding much more quickly through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program without the need for neurology experts. Baseluos Law Firm is well versed in the handling of GBS flu vaccine injury cases, and has obtained settlements of several hundred thousand dollars each for individual claimants.

The Miller Fisher variant of GBS is also linked to the flu vaccine. In Miller Fischer, the victim develops ataxia (defined as the presence of abnormal, uncoordinated movements), ascending numbness, and facial palsy shortly after the influenza vaccination. The key distinguishing difference between GBS and the Miller Fischer variant is that while GBS victims experience descending numbness from their upper extremities, Miller Fischer victims experience ascending numbness originating from their lower extremities (legs , toes). Both GBS and the Miller Fischer variant can all develop after an antecedent infection and share a characteristic elevation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein. An elevation in CSF proteins is often a tell tale marker of GBS, and lumbar punctures are the primary mechanism to identify the elevation. GBS victims often develop a disabling chronic fatigue syndrome, often manifesting itself as chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). Their conditions are often compatible with the spectrum of acute inflammatory polyneuropathies with vaccination as the triggering factor.

In the course of recovery, the GBS victim will eventually walk without assistance. However, they may still continue to experience residual symptoms, including excessive fatigue, especially when exercising as well as fasciculations, which are brief, spontaneous contractions of the muscles. Michael Baseluos has witnessed GBS clients who even years after their initial vaccine injury, still experience paresthesia in both hands and easily fluctuating blood pressure and heart rate than prior to GBS. Rippling of the muscles under the eyelids and over the cheek along with intermittent diarrhea may also be present. White matter changes on the MRI is another tell tale sign of GBS sequelae, or long term consequences related to Guillain Barre. These findings are suggestive of autonomic dysfunction. There is no cure for the disorder, but several treatments can ease pain and reduce the duration of the illness. Most people recover completely from even the most severe cases of GBS. GBS survivors will return to some normalcy but these type of residual symptoms can still persist, forming a strong basis for compensation for future pain and suffering, income loss, and out of pocket medical costs.

In cases where the client was healthy before a flu shot, the government has a much more difficult time arguing that influenza infection, upper respiratory or gastrointestinal infection are the culprits behind Guillain Barre Syndrome. About two thirds of GBS cases have an antecedent infection within six weeks prior to symptom onset, generally an upper respiratory tract infection or gastroenteritis. Epstein-Barr virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Campylobacter jejuni and cytomegalovirus, are some of the non-vaccine infectious agents.

Because vaccines affect the body at a micro level, it is impossible to know the exact mechanism by which they cause injury. We know GBS can be triggered not only by vaccines but also by a respiratory infection or the stomach flu. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which represents the government’s interest will often argue that a person’s GBS was triggered not by a vaccination but by a respiratory or gastrointestinal illness. A GBS lawyer like Mike Baseluos knows how to attack these arguments using strong neurologist experts. The key to success in a GBS vaccine injury case is to demonstrate the client had no antecedent upper respiratory or gastrointestinal infection within six weeks prior to symptom onset. Removing this argument creates a strong case where it becomes substantially probable that the flu vaccine for example is demonstrated to be the triggering factor for GBS similar to the one triggered by upper respiratory or gastrointestinal infection in non vaccination GBS patients. It should be noted that even in cases where the client did have an infection prior to GBS onset, arguments can be made on the timing element to demonstrate the vaccine, not the infection, was the most significant factor in causation.

For a liquor provider, the basic Texas dram shop liability act investigates several factors including whether the provider broke the law in selling or giving the alcohol to the DWI driver; whether such alcohol was the proximate cause of his intoxication (oftentimes, the drunk driver has received alcohol from a number of providers prior to a major accident); whether the provider knew or should have known that the defendant DUI / DWI driver was below the legal age of 21 or heavily intoxicated at the time the alcohol was furnished; whether it was objectively obvious the person was intoxicated or was underage at the time; and finally, whether the intoxication level was the primary driving factor behind a DWI / DUI death or serious injury.

The seminal case that has driven the enactment of dram shop liability laws was a NJ case called Rappaport v. Nichols , which held that a bar could be held legally liable for furnishing alcohol to an underage or visibly intoxicated individual who thereafter commits a DWI / DUI offense that kills or seriously injures pedestrians or other drivers.

The dram shop laws differ from state to state in terms of who is allowed to sue under the statute, who is a potential 3rd party, what type of behavior is considered dram shop liability, and the level of fault required. If you or a loved one have suffered injury at the hands of a drunk driver, you should contact a DWI attorney without delay. Depending on the state or jurisdiction where the DWI / DUI accident occurs, Baseluos Law Firm attorneys can bring a negligence action either under the common law , the specific state dram shop act, or a combination. Providing alcohol to a minor in of itself is considered “negligence per se”, a fancy way of saying it is an automatic violation of the dram shop law.

There are cases in which the injured party is the DWI driver himself, which presents an interesting albeit challenging case. The attorney would have to show the provider was negligent in providing the plaintiff with the alcohol, but a jury is likely to ascribe some percentage of negligence to the DWI driver himself. Percentages tend to run lower if the injured plaintiff was a pedestrian.

One of the most intriguing aspects of DWI accident law is the concept of social host liability, where the DWI injury is the result of a driver who receives his alcohol at an informal party or gathering like a wedding. Some jurisdictions especially in the Northeast, particularly NJ, have recognized social host liability to the extent the courts make no distinction between commercial and private providers of alcohol. Michael Baseluos examines all fact situations involving DWI accidents including situations where the negligent driver obtained his alcohol in an informal setting. Certain exceptions can be carved out for a social host’s liability for a drunk guest’s negligence that injures others even in jurisdictions which might not recognize social host liability.

BLF has fought for many clients who have developed GBS as a result of vaccinations, specifically the flu and TDaP vaccinations. Most if not all vaccinations are capable of producing Guillain Barre Syndrome. Often, the patient develops tingling in their fingers and toes which depending on the type of GBS can progress to upper or lower extremities and even the face. Victims of GBS complain of gait difficulties, generalized weakness and fatigue. Vaccination victims may complain of being off balance and having “spongy” feet.

Clients will often seek assistance from a medical center emergency room when their symptoms become extremely exacerbated and the tingling and numbness have become severe. Some medical doctors misdiagnose GBS as being psychosomatic or a product of anxiety. If this occurs, BLF advises that clients immediately demand a neurological examination as there are clear markers of GBS following vaccination. Blood work may be taken and in the case of respiratory failure due to paralysis, chest CT and chest CT angiograms will be taken to rule out pulmonary embolus. It is not uncommon for a client to be released from a hospital on a misdiagnosis only to return a few days later when symptoms have progressed, and the client now suffers from intermittent double vision, major fatigue and unsteady gait. Numbness and tingling from Guillain Barre can progress to affect the lower, trunk, upper extremities and face including the tongue.

Often, a GBS victim of vaccination will consult with their primary care physician with several complaints including diffuse numbness and bobbling head. Neurological assessment is often significant for slurred speech, difficulty with walking, hyporeflexic deep tendon reflexes and unsteady gait. The primary care doctor may refer the patient for a neurological consultation which may indicate tingling progression, weakness and unbalance following influenza vaccination (or other types of vaccines). The accepted timeline to prove that the vaccinations caused GBS is approximately 2-6 weeks following injection, although it is not unheard of to contract GBS earlier or later than this time frame. For example, Michael Baseluos has obtained compensation for GBS following only 1 week after vaccination and as high as 8 weeks after vaccination. The Court of Federal Claims which oversees vaccine claims generally has not found causation in cases where the person immediately developed GBS 24-48 hours after vaccination or more than 2 months after vaccination. That being said, each case is different and you should not assume you are not entitled to compensation. Immediately contact a GBS vaccine injury attorney to assess your rights.

Nerve conduction studies are an excellent way to gauge damages from GBS injuries in order to maximize a damage award with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. EMG studies can demonstrate demyelination or amplitude drop that suggest variations on GBS including a more severe form of acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP). Abnormal electrodiagnostic studies are an excellent tool used by Baseluos Law Firm for Guillain Barre Clients.

Recently Drs. Hwang and Hun concluded studies of senior citizens who switched from traditional warfarin to the blood thinner rivaroxaban (pharmaceutical name for Xarelto). The researchers discovered the patients were at increased risk of vitreous hemorrhage or eye bleeds. In June 2015, a leading medical journal, JAMA Ophthalmology published their research detailing xarelto side effects of eye bleed injuries shortly after transitioning from Warfarin to Xarelto.

Scientists and professors from John Hopkins published a study in the April 2015 issue of BMJ (originally known as the British Medical Journal) in which they investigated the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with anticoagulants. The researchers concluded that there could be a “more than twofold higher risk of bleeding with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin.”

Bayer AG and Janssen Pharmaceuticals (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) marketed Xarelto as a one time daily (1x per day) medication. The idea of a once daily dosage was done to appeal to consumers and lure them away from the competitor manufacturers of Pradaxa and Eliquis. Yet studies have confirmed that the intensity of Xarelto’s anticoagulant properties largely decreases over the course of the day, leaving Xarelto users in serious danger of internal bleeding , uncontrolled bleeding , and hemorrhages . The defendant manufacturers absolutely never warned the prescribing doctors over the drop in blood thinner effectiveness, forming a large basis of “efficacy claims” in the federal courts.

Another largely unsound and deceptive business practice of the manufacturer defendants was to market Xarelto as being better than Warfarin due to their claims that a routine blood test was unnecessary for Xarelto users as compared to warfarin users. These claims have now undergone major scrutiny as it has been demonstrated that xarelto bleedout incidents would have been seriously diminished had blood monitoring taken place. In fact, Xarelto manufacturers had actually developed a blood testing device to use in conjunction with Xarelto but chose not to actively push that device for fear it would discredit their prior claims of no blood monitoring and diminish profits. Downplaying or out rightly rejecting the need for blood monitoring is a major part of the case against the manufacturers for failure to warn which has led to xarelto fatalities and serious side effects .

In our prior blog entry on the learned intermediary doctrine , we discussed the key element of whether the prescribing information given to the doctor adequately allowed medical providers to weigh the risks and benefits of prescribing Xarelto. A strong argument can be made that in fact prescribers were seriously misinformed about the effectiveness of rivaroxaban and xarelto side effects.

Baseluos Law Firm is offering free consultations for anyone in the United States who has suffered a severe bleeding event, gastrointestinal bleeding, cerebral hemorrhaging, or even death from Xarelto.

In reality, if pharmaceutical manufacturers can show that they adequately informed the doctor of the risks of their drugs, then the manufacturers can shield themselves from product liability suits, even if ultimately patients do not receive any warnings. In reviewing manufacturer warnings, it is tempting to analyze the FDA Black Box Warnings and the Medication guide, both of which the FDA approves. A Black box warning appears on a prescription drug label and highlights life threatening or serious adverse effects for the consumer. Medication Guides are paper copies that accompany prescription medicines which deal with both general and specific information on harmful or threatening drug effects. However, a Xarelto lawsuit lawyer is more interested in the FDA approved prescribing information ie. Determining what manufacturers provided to the prescribing doctors.

Xarelto / Rivaroxaban belongs to a class of drugs known as NOACs – Non Vitamin K Dependent Anticoagulants. Other drugs in this class include Pradaxa and Eliquis. These specific NOACs were all evaluated against warfarin, a traditional anticoagulant, and underwent clinical trials and obtained FDA approval. Moreover, Xarelto defendants like Bayer AG and Janssen Pharmaceuticals touted NOACs and being more effective and safer than Warfarin, employing direct to consumer advertising (DTC). Interestingly, only the USA and New Zealand permit DTC advertising of prescription drugs.

To successfully succeed on a pharmaceutical liability suit, it is critical that a xarelto attorney prove the prescribing physician did not have enough information as to the risks and benefits of xarelto upon drafting the prescription. As Xarelto litigation develops, the key component for a xarelto law firm is to prove the doctor would never have prescribed rivaroxaban (the official medical term for xarelto) had they had a complete picture of the risks of xarelto bleeding problems. A xarelto lawsuit based on inadequate or misinformation communicated to physicians focuses on three (3) major areas. The first area is whether the manufacturer sufficient communicated risks of xarelto as a blood thinner or whether doctors commonly knew the risks of rivararoxaban. The second area is whether rivaroxaban manufacturers accurately communicated the benefits of the blood thinner without exaggeration. The final area is whether the manufacturer in any way misled the prescribing doctor about the risks or benefits of xarelto.

Xarelto in particular was tested against Warfarin to obtain FDA approval, and marketed as being more effective and safer than Warfarin. Despite no antidote for uncontrolled bleeding caused by Xarelto (as opposed to warfarin which uncontrolled bleeding could be controlled by Vitamin K), Janssen and Bayer heavily marketed Xarelto. It should be noted that the pharmaceutical manufacturers did include a warning in the FDA approved prescribing information that a specific antidote for rivaroxaban was not available. An argument can be made that such warnings were inadequate.

However, the most damning aspects of the prescribing information were inadequate representations of the benefits and safety of Xarelto over warfarin. Specifically, scientific research now reflects xarelto is not as effective as warfarin. The manufacturers exaggerated the benefits to push greater prescriptions. Nor is xarelto safer than warfarin given the major risk of unsafe bleeding events. It should also be noted that the xarelto dosage of 1x per day leaves Xarelto users with diminished protection against coagulant protection for extended periods of time. If you are considering a lawsuit from xarelto side effects, please contact Baseluos Law Firm immediately.

The first category consists of plaintiffs who suffered a gastrointestinal or rectal bleed after taking the drug known as rivaroxaban (Xarelto) to reduce the risk of stroke or embolism (an obstruction in a blood vessel due to a clot or foreign matter that becomes stuck in the blood stream).

The second category of plaintiffs are those individuals who took the blood thinner to treat deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a blood clot formed in a vein. If the clot travels through the bloodstream, it can eventually block an artery in the lungs, leading to pulmonary embolism (PE). The most common scenario for this category are plaintiffs who underwent hip or knee replacement surgery. Those plaintiffs using xarelto to treat DVT or PE and who thereafter suffer uncontrolled bleeding from gastrointestinal or rectal internal bleeding are part of this second category.

The third category of plaintiffs involve individuals who suffered atrial fibrillation and took xarelto to minimize the risk of stroke and thereafter suffered a hemorrhage and / or brain bleeds. Atrial fibrillation is a type of arrhythmia that affects the rhythm of the heart.

The recent order signed by Judge New, Case Management Order No. 11, can be reviewed here .

Judge New has scheduled ten (10) bellwether trials over the course of 2017. It is not cost effective to take thousands of cases to trial in pharmaceutical product liability suits. Bellwether trials are intended to be test cases to determine if the defendants are liable for xarelto fatalities and serious side effects. If the cases proceed well on behalf of the plaintiffs in these trials, then defendants are likely to agree to a mass settlement for the several thousand plaintiffs injured from xarelto.

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is not the only jurisdiction hearing Xarelto injury cases. Currently, a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) on Xarelto bleedouts is being held in the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans before the Honorable US District Judge Fallon. A multidistrict litigation (MDL) is a unique federal legal procedure that accelerates the process of handling complex pharmaceutical drug liability cases. Attorneys on both sides can exchange key documents and questions regarding a manufacturer’s negligence and whether the drug injured plaintiffs can be resolved in an organized , efficient manner. Defendants in the federal MDL include Bayer Healthcare and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. In the federal MDL, Judge Fallon has also scheduled bellwether trials in the Eastern District in 2017.

Judge New in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is specifically allowing Xarelto Efficacy Claims, which represent blood clot injuries as a result of xarelto failing to prevent blood clots. The efficacy claims revolve around xarelto’s 1x per day dosing schedule. The argument is that the anticoagulant ability to prevent blood clots wore off before a patient could take the next dose of xarelto. The marketing ploy of a one dose per day is alleged to have been done by Bayer and Jannsen simply to gain an advantage over other rivals whose own blood thinners required multiple daily doses such as Eliquis and Pradaxa.

These types of efficacy claims are currently not being accepted by Judge Fallon in the federal MDL on Louisiana.

Michael Baseluos is a Xarelto attorney currently assisting those individuals who have been injured from xarelto.

Negligent entrustment is especially applicable in the case of a rental agency which rents vehicles to an unlicensed or drunk driver. However, if the person renting the vehicle did not exhibit any tell tale signs of recklessness or incompetence or some disability that would impair them, it is more difficult to impute liability to a car rental agency. It should also be noted that if the owner is an employer or has already admitted liability for the driver, then a theory of negligent entrustment is not necessary.

At times, if there is adequate insurance coverage on the driver, then it may not be necessary to involve the driver. However, in many cases, there is no insurance coverage or level of injuries far exceed the level of coverage and therefore the attorney must try to bring in the owner on a negligent entrustment theory. As a matter of trial tactics, a sympathetic negligent driver can also hurt a case for damages, and it is necessary to bring the owner or employer into the case, especially if there is a case for liability.

While not common, there are situations where a passenger can be held liable for the negligent acts of a driver. Some specific examples include direct acts that interfere with the driver, or providing intoxicants and permitting that person to drive. To hold a passenger jointly liable for injuries, Baseluos Law Firm will examine whether the passenger committed such acts as pressing on the brake or accelerator, preventing the driver from applying the brake or accelerator, grabbing the steering wheel; hindering the driver’s view; pushing or aggressively fighting with the driver, and other various acts.

Another scenario involving passenger joint liability is if the passenger and driver were involved in a joint venture. Some common tell-tale marks of a joint venture include going to a common destination ; an agreement to share expenses; a joint venture in renting the vehicle; joint ownership of the vehicle; and other forms of proof that reflect an equal opportunity to control the direction of the vehicle.

Trying to fix liability on a passenger who provides alcohol or drugs to the driver generally requires proof of some additional act besides giving alcohol. The theory of negligent entrustment in such cases becomes stronger when the passenger is also the owner.

Negligent entrustment theory also can apply in certain situations where the passenger has some sort of authority over the driver’s actions. A common scenario is the limousine driver and the owner-passenger or the passenger that hires the driver. Other scenarios include a driving school instructor passenger and the student driver.

The objective of negligent entrustment is to provide another tool to hold persons outside the driver negligent under the law in the various greater San Antonio auto accidents that occur daily.

If an owner expressly or impliedly gives his consent to a member of the family, that owner can be held liable, especially if the vehicle was purchased by the owner and used for family activities. To invoke the family purpose doctrine, Baseluos Law Firm works to demonstrate that the owner defendant 1) maintained control and ownership of the vehicle; 2) utilized the vehicle for family activities; 3) the negligent driver was a member of the owner’s family; 4) the driver was using the vehicle at the time for a family purpose; and 5) the owner gave his consent for the use.

The family purpose doctrine is not just applicable to a head of household but also parents and their children. To hold another family member liable, that individual must have been an owner of the vehicle . The registered owner is not necessarily indicative of family car liability. When examining whether a vehicle fits the role of a family car, courts look at factors such as who assumed the financial responsibility for the car; who had the right to control use of the car; and the intent of the family members.

Often, in San Antonio car accidents, owners try to escape liability by claiming the family member exceeded the scope of permission for use of the car. For example, owners will claim that the vehicle was only to be driven to a certain location or within certain hours. Even if the car was used in a manner not approved by the owner, if the use was generally within the scope of the permission, owners will not escape liability.

Moreover, even if the vehicle was originally bought for business purposes, but ultimately is used to for family activities, the family purpose doctrine still applies.

Sometimes a family member will lend a vehicle to another person to drive without the permission of the owner. In such a case, the owner may still be held liable if that owner allowed the original family to use the vehicle and the vehicle was being used for a family activity at the time of collision. The family purpose doctrine can even apply when the owner explicitly told the family member not to allow third parties to drive the vehicle.

Sometimes application of the family purpose doctrine is rendered obsolete, because the insurance coverage of the owner automatically extends to household members or individuals given permission to drive by the owner. Because insurance policies are often the primary means of obtaining compensation, invocation of the family purpose doctrine is often not necessary.

In a twist, an owners suing a family member for damage to his car may find himself limited on damages if it can be shown he has comparative negligence for allowing the family member to drive the car in the first place.

To illustrate res ipsa loquitur, there are some common types of accidents that come to mind. In cases where the vehicle leaves the roadway without apparent cause, there is an inference of negligence. Another example is a recent trucking case where Baseluos Law Firm was able to show that a tractor trailer veered into the shoulder where another tractor trailer was legally stationed causing great injuries and property damage. In accidents where injury resulted from a wheel or auto part coming of a vehicle, courts have inferred negligence.

In San Antonio and greater Bexar County, we often see injuries occur where a car comes to a stop on a highway without a collision or where the motor vehicle turns over on a highway without a preceding event. Oftentimes, we see objects such as cargo, equipment, or furniture fall from a vehicle causing injury. If you can believe it, there have even been cases of parked cars accidentally starting and causing collisions. Many of these cases fall under res ipsa loquitur.

There are some cases where negligence is not automatically presumed. Courts have frequently rejected the presumption in cases where an injured party tried to hold the owner liable from a tire blowout accident.

Another major topic is under what circumstances we can hold an owner liable for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle that is driven by someone else. In general, an owner who gives his express or implied permission to another person is ultimately also responsible if that person negligently hurts another person. Baseluos Law Firm sees this scenario often. The operator of the vehicle will carry some minimal amount of liability insurance while the owner of the vehicle possesses a much larger liability policy with umbrella limits that can greatly help the seriously injured. A Texas car accident attorney will do preliminary investigation into the liability limits of both the owner and operator to effectively gauge proper monetary compensation for their client. Investigative efforts should also be made to identify ALL owners of a vehicle since the vehicle at issue may have multiple owners with insurance coverage.

Another key concept involving the owner versus operator relationship is the concept of agency. An owner is liable for the negligent operation of a vehicle by an agent or employee which occurs in the course of agency or employment. For example, a vehicle driven by the employee of a dealership gets into an auto accident while using the vehicle to transport some passengers. The dealership business in addition to the actual driver is responsible. Often times, these businesses carry commercial vehicle injury coverage. There are exceptions. For example, taxis are often operated by independent contractors and their owners are less likely to be liable. On the positive note, taxi or livery drivers carry insurance with the higher commercial limits.

The concept of agency stretches to family cars in which owners can be held responsible for the careless driving of a family member, an extremely common scenario in San Antonio.

Another common situation occurs when the vehicle operator is a mechanic employed by the owner to repair the vehicle. For example, we hear of mechanics picking up vehicles to be serviced; driving the vehicles back to the service shop after picking the vehicle up from the owners; test-driving the vehicles both when they are requested specifically by the owner to do such tests and when they are not specifically requested; driving the vehicles back to the owners after repair; or in some bizarre cases, using vehicles for their own personal use. In every one of the aforementioned scenarios, the mechanic can get into an accident with the owner’s vehicle. Can the owner be held liable for the mechanic’s negligence ?

In most cases, the law says no. The mechanic is considered an independent contractor, free from any control of the owner. In some cases, however, the owner may still be held liable if the owner is deemed to have consented to the mechanic’s operation or in some cases if the owner knew or should have known the mechanic was an unsafe driver.

These types of scenarios are quite uncommon. The most common scenario is where an employee negligently commits an accident with a car owned by his employer. The only remaining question is whether the employee was within the scope of his employment when he operated the vehicle. Baseluos Law Firm is well versed in these types of cases and often can get high rewards for client due to the likelihood of a commercial auto policy.

The first step in successfully prosecuting commercial vehicle accidents is to establish an employment relationship as opposed to an independent contractor relationship. Even if the trucker is an independent contractor, liability can still be bestowed on the company that owns the truck. In strictly looking at an employer-employee relationship, we can bestow liability on the employer if it can be shown that employee was acting within the scope of their employment. More often than not, this is not that heavy a burden to overcome.

Filling up an employer’s vehicle with gas or water is considered within the course of employment. We often see employees mix their personal business with their employment duties and in that case, such behavior is still within the realm of employment and the employer can be held liable for the employee’s negligence. Occasionally, Baseluos Law Firm will run into situations where the employee takes a ‘detour’ from official business. If the employee was acting for his own personal affairs, then he may be outside the scope of employment. However, if the employee is still somewhat acting on behalf of his employer or starts back on his normal course, then an argument can be made against the employer. Some courts look at the degree of deviation from normal course of employment, and sometimes an argument can be made that such deviations are minor and foreseeable and should not absolve the employer from negligence.

A trucking accident attorney must show the employee had the employer’s express or implied permission to use the vehicle at issue. A lot of Texas jurisdictions take the approach that it is presumed that a vehicle owned by an employer and driven by en employee was done in the furtherance of the employer’s business and the debate stops.

Baseluos Law Firm will often investigate whether the route taken by the employee is related to the business destination. This is a sure fire mark of employer liability even if the employee did not take the same exact route demanded by the employer. If an employee is negligent and causes injury by using a motor vehicle for personal use before or after business hours, it becomes tougher to hold the employer negligent. However, if the employee is furthering the business of his boss, liability can still be established even if the accident occurred outside work hours. Going to and from employment is normally not considered within the scope of employment. However, exceptions to this rule can occur if the employer is paying the worker’s mileage or transportation expenses. The same concept applies to the employee’s transit to and from restaurants .

Employers are generally not responsible for the intentional actions of employees such as an assault on another driver. If the employee driver is intoxicated, there may be a basis for imposing liability on the employer.

Baseluos Law Firm employs a variety of investigative techniques when prosecuting San Antonio commercial vehicle accidents including:

• Determining ownership of the vehicle and the purpose of use;
• Determining the ultimate destination of the employee, where the auto originated from, and the most direct route of travel;
• Determining any and all stops and purpose of each stop;
• Preparing a timeline of when the trip began and the various length of each section of the trip and its stops;
• Investigating the exact instructions given to the driver;
• Probing the employment history of the driver at fault including the length of time of their employment and all their supervisors;
• Obtaining key information on the accident itself including all retails related to the collision and all actions done on the date of accident;
• Investigating the exact duties of the driver at fault, their hours of employment, the employer’s awareness of the driver’s actions and use of the vehicle, and any financial reimbursement related to the vehicleAs you can see, much goes into successful prosecution of commercial vehicle accidents.

Establishing employer liability for an employee’s negligent driving and thereby invoking the higher coverage of a commercial policy is critical especially in the face of devastating injuries from trucking accidents.

In our prior post on driver liability in San Antonio auto accidents, we discussed the theory of negligence and how it applied in some of the common auto accidents we see in San Antonio and Texas. Today, we would like to discuss how violations of traffic laws tie into proving negligence on the part of another driver and pedestrian injuries at the hands of negligent drivers.

There are times when a driver’s violation of traffic laws rises to liability. These are quite frankly the best cases especially if the driver is cited by local or county police on the scene. If the driver pleads guilty and pays a fine, such evidence can be used to demonstrate negligence. Baseluos Law Firm will often contact the local district attorney and county clerk to determine the status of a ticket. If necessary, certified records of the driver’s plea in criminal traffic court can be used at a civil trial to prove negligence.

In many jurisdictions in Texas, the ‘rules of the road’ represent commonly accepted standards of driving, which when violated, can provide the basis for establishing liability in court. The other driver, passenger, or pedestrian who is injured is most often a member of the group of people the traffic laws are designed to protect. To prove liability, it must be shown at trial that the violation of the traffic regulation caused the injury. Juries will receive what is known as a ‘statutory charge’ outlining the presumption of the violation of the law and automatic liability.

In San Antonio and Texas, there is a concept in law known as ‘negligence per se’ in which violation of a traffic statute automatically constitutes negligence. A classic example is the rear end accident which assumes driver inattention. The defendant in these cases must then show there was some factor beyond their control which caused the violation. Classic examples include unforeseen equipment failure or some unpredictable driving action that caused loss of control (example – evasive action to avoid a vehicle that crosses into oncoming traffic). Baseluos Law Firm is very familiar with these types of defenses and will fight these defenses especially if a driver reacted to conditions that were foreseeable. The key term of foreseeability stops a lot of vehicle impact defenses in their tracks because juries have little sympathy for drivers whose lack of planning or anticipation severely hurts people.

More often than not, we see many pedestrian injuries from careless drivers. A motor vehicle driver owes a duty to pedestrians moving along a highway or street to exercise reasonable care to avoid injury and ensure safety. This requires drivers to anticipate the presences of people along a highway or street. At the same time, pedestrians must be on the lookout for vehicles, but unless the pedestrian is in the middle of the road, drivers have a greater duty.

The driver generally has right of way over pedestrians crossing outside a marked crosswalk or intersection, but even having the right of way does not absolve the driver from using reasonable care. In contrast, even though pedestrians have a right of way at intersections and marked crosswalks, they still have a duty to exercise reasonable care. Children especially present a special case – drivers are expected to assume children will act well like children. A motorist driving in San Antonio especially in school zones has to anticipate that a child may suddenly run out in front of an oncoming vehicle.

Baseluos Law Firm can assist child victims of driver negligence especially when the accident occurs near a school or playground, near a school bus, or on a street where kids frequently play. Injured children in San Antonio car accidents are especially heartbreaking and require aggressive litigation.

A word should be mentioned about Texas guest statutes. A ‘guest’ is a person who accepts transportation services of an owner or operator of a vehicle without giving any benefit such as money in return for the service. In Texas, there is a prohibition against obtaining compensation against the the driver of a vehicle if the passenger of a vehicle is closely related to the driver. For example, a child generally cannot sue a parent or grandparent who negligence causes injury to the child. There is an exception however if the accident was intentional or done with reckless disregard for the safety of others. Guest statutes were originally enacted to prevent fraud between guests and operators of vehicles to defraud liability insurers.

When investigating a negligence in an auto accident, it is imperative to show that the person failed to exercise ordinary care. The degree of care we expect from the operation of a motor vehicle accident can vary. In Texas, particularly in San Antonio, the degree of care we expect varies with the condition of the road, weather conditions such as rain, and the presence of children.

Negligence in the operation of a car can also be measured by a driver’s violation of traffic laws. A ticket given at a scene by the San Antonio police is a tell tale sign that there is negligence, and makes for a strong case. Sometimes drivers can be considered negligent even if they operate within the law. For example, during a torrential rain on a slick road, San Antonio drivers may still be held negligent even if they drive within the speed limit. The question is whether the driver drove at a speed that was reasonable and proper under the existing traffic conditions. A driver can be driving within the speed limit and still be held liable for driving too fast under the conditions.

Moreover, there is a legal principle that a driver or pedestrian does not have to anticipate the negligence of another driver. Unless a person knows that a motorist will not be exercising due care or following traffic regulations, there is a presumption that other drivers will follow the laws and exercise reasonable care. Keep in mind that this principle does not apply to a minor child near a roadway. You should not expect such a person to know the traffic laws.

So what does exercising reasonable care mean ? Often for local and greater San Antonio drivers, it means keeping your vehicle under control at all times so as to avoid dangerous contact with vehicles and pedestrians. There have stories of drivers in Bexar County losing consciousness, and causing an accident. It may be due to an unforeseen heart attack, stroke, epileptic seizure, diabetic attack, or fainting episode. The sudden loss of consciousness can be a viable defense but the critical question is whether such a medical condition was foreseeable. The concept of foreseeability is critical when a San Antonio auto injury lawyer is faced with such a defense. For example, was the driver aware of the medical condition that caused the incapacity ? Did he take any medications for the condition ? Had there been prior incidents of loss of capacity ? Did any physician warn the person not to drive ? Were there any advance warnings the person would have experienced prior to becoming incapacitated? These are just some of the major areas a good auto injury attorney will explore when faced with such a defense.

Baseluos Law Firm is very experienced in the handling of auto claims, particularly in the initial investigative stages. Reviewing police reports combined with interviews of the investigative officer and witnesses are critical tasks. An attorney should never assume that there is no question of liability. In practicality, in a motor vehicle collision, there has been some violation of traffic laws, but one should never assume negligence is automatically the result.

Baseluos Law Firm is especially adept at handling common motor vehicle accident cases, such as the all too common rear end collision. In Bexar County and Texas, whenever a vehicle rear ends a vehicle in front of it, the driver of the vehicle is automatically presumed at fault. Drivers in these situations will try to deflect responsibility by claiming they had the vehicle under control, had clear view of the vehicle ahead, and followed at a safe distance. We often see defendant drivers claim that the vehicle in front came to an unexplained sudden stop, which precipitated the accident. That is when the firm must work to show additional evidence of negligence, such as a driver talking on their cell phone immediately prior to the accident. The law firm will pull phone records and do exhaustive investigation as most defendants will not readily admit this.

Other types of accidents besides a rear end collision, involve clear liability.. Those include collisions where the defendant crosses into the plaintiff’s lane; a left-turning driver who impacts an oncoming vehicle; and driving through a red light. Some accidents do not easily translate into driver liability. For example, we cannot assume negligence in San Antonio from a driver skidding on a wet road unless there is some other negligence involved such as driving too fast for road conditions.

Other types of accidents are not as clear cut and a law firm must do extra digging to establish liability. Intersection collisions are especially difficult and more often than not both drivers are negligent to some degree.

Finally, we tend to believe that negligence in San Antonio car accidents belongs to the driver operating the vehicle. Yet one has to think outside of the box – for example, the owner may have negligently entrusted the vehicle to an intoxicated or incapacitated driver or perhaps the owner failed maintain the vehicle’s safety features like brakes. The mechanic who repaired the vehicle may be liable for example if the brakes failed.

The answer is ‘Yes’. Even without a reasonable suspicion, law enforcement can approach people for questioning and even ask to search objects in your possession. However, a line is drawn if the officer suggests you MUST talk to them or allow them to search your person or possessions. This is impermissible under the Supreme Court’s ruling in US v. Dayton. The rule of thumb is that a person is not generally required to answer inquiries from law enforcement or submit to a search.

There are exceptions where law enforcement will ask for identification. Most states have “stop and identify” which allows law enforcement to detain individuals and request identification provided there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal acitivity. Under Texas penal code, Section 38.02 , a person commits an offense if he refuses to give identifying information to a police officer who has lawfully arrested him. The general rule of thumb if you are unsure is to provide only your name, date of birth, and residence when asked. However, beyond this information, you have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. You cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions beyond identifying questions. Recent Supreme Court decisions have stated that you must verbally assert your right to remain silent with a simple “I invoke my right to remain silent.”

Some people ask whether they have the right to walk away from a law enforcement officer who questions them. If law enforcement does not have ‘probable cause’ ( defined as the ability to articulate an objective factual basis to suspect a person has committed a crime) to justify an arrest or a ‘reasonable suspicion’ to do a ‘stop and frisk’ (detaining and questioning someone with a limited pat-down search for weapons), then yes, a person can walk away from a police officer . Yet it is impossible to know exactly why the police officer is questioning you. Sometimes, law enforcement can have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do a stop and frisk even if the individual has not done anything wrong. An officer can forcibly detain a person who begins to walk away from police questioning. A practical way to avoid unnecessary confrontation is to simply ask the officer if you are allowed to leave. If the officer refuses to allow you to leave, then obey his commands. However, do not feel compelled to answer any questions. Ultimately, your attorney will challenge whether the officer had legal justification for the detention.

Even if you do engage in an interview with police, you can stop your conversation with the police at any time. Some police officers will threaten an individual with loitering if the person refuses to answer questions. Loitering is defined as aimless wandering such that a person would threaten public safety. A police officer could request id and engage the person in questioning if he has sufficient reason to believe a person is loitering. In some jurisdictions, there are complaints that loitering laws are being used to discriminate against indigent people and ethnic minorities. It is best not to get into confrontations with police over loitering laws.

If you are accused of a crime that involves a confrontation with the police, contact a San Antonio Criminal Defense Attorney without delay.

The third category of valuation damages is the actual or intrinsic value to the owner, which is a type of damages that is only applicable where market or replacement value cannot be calculated. For example, property that provided for the comfort and well-being of the owner does not have market value, but may have intrinsic value. Common examples of items with actual or intrinsic value are clothing, furniture, and photo albums.

As you can probably conclude, actual or intrinsic value is generally not used to measure damages in auto accident cases, unless there are some very unique circumstances. Intrinsic value is the value of the property to the owner, excluding sentimental value (another category of damages we will cover later on). The actual value of an item is not restricted to the item’s market value at the time of loss. Basically, it’s incredibly difficult to put a market or replacement valuation on household goods, clothing, and personal effects. For example, in one case a Texas court ruled that damages to the contents of a mobile home do not need to be based on market value.

To prove actual / intrinsic value, the injured party will testify about the value of the damaged property as the owner. Generally, various forms of evidence can be introduced to clarify the property’s value including its condition before the damaging event, the original cost, age, level of use , cost of replacement, and possibly experts.

A San Antonio negligence attorney will actually state in the petition for damages that market and replacement value measures of value will not adequately compensate an injured plaintiff. Generally, courts do not require an injured party to prove household goods, clothing, and personal effects have no market value.

What is interesting is the ever rising use of online auction sites like Ebay . The idea that somehow household goods, clothing, and personal effects may not have market value or a replacement value may be going the way of the dinosaur. An experienced Texas injury lawyer will confer with his clients about the prices certain household goods may be fetching on these online auction sites.

The final category of valuation damages is sentimental value, the fallback where market value, replacement value , and actual value do not apply. Keep in mind that sentimental value takes into account the owner’s special feelings about the items. Examples of damaged property for which Texas courts have allowed the recovery of sentimental value include family heirlooms, items belonging to grandparents or earlier generations, pictures, birth records, trophies, and wedding pictures. Baseluos Law Firm will confer about the client’s sentimental feelings and put the opposing party on notice that the plaintiff will be seeking sentimental damages.

more Proving sentimental value rests in demonstrating the property had special value as an heirloom. Sentimental value is not an appropriate measure of damages for household goods or clothing. To prove sentimental value, the owner would testify about the item as an heirloom and give a jury a proposed dollar figure. The plaintiff does not have to prove that heirlooms have no market value.

In the last three blog entries, we have discussed the various subcategories of valuation damages including market value, replacement value, actual / intrinsic value, and sentimental value. In our next blog, we will focus on a separate category of personal property damages – repair damages which encompasses cost of repair and loss of use.

Keep in mind that valuation damages can be awarded only if the property is entirely destroyer or partially damaged – these damages work in auto accidents. Repair damages are only applicable if the property is partially damaged and capable of being repaired.

To prove market value (defined as the difference in the value of the item immediately before and immediately after the collision), an injured party can offer either his/her own personal testimony or that of an expert provided the testimony deals with market value as opposed to sentimental value. The witness must be familiar with the market value of the property and the value must be measured at the time of the auto accident, not the value at time of trial.

A market value witness can introduce common appraisal guides like Kelley Blue Book which publishes automobile vehicle valuations as well as before and after photographs of the damaged vehicle.

Another critical component to proving market value is to introduce the repair bills to prove the difference in market value before and after the collision. The argument here is that the vehicle repair would ultimately make the vehicle like new or restore the car back to full working mode. Therefore, the cost of repairs becomes the primary evidence of loss in market value. The collision repair estimates then represent the difference in value before and after the car accident.

There are certain proposed measures of damages which the Texas courts have ruled are inadmissible as a means of proving market value including the purchase price of the vehicle (cars depreciate) and any amount remitted by the insurance company for losses. If market value is not a viable option, the next category of valuation damages is replacement value, meaning the cost of replacing the car or reproducing the damaged goods. The cost of replacement is reduced by any enhancements or upgrades to the vehicle which were not present before the accident. In addition, the damages must be reduced by the depreciation of the original vehicle and the salvage value. So a vehicle that is 10 years old which is totaled in a San Antonio car accident could theoretically be replaced by a newer vehicle. However, replacement value would be reduced by the decrease in value due to depreciation and any salvage value of the original property.

more To prove replacement value, the injured party can offer their own personal testimony or that of an expert concerning the cost of replacing damaged property. Testimony would consist of discussion of the condition and value of the property at the time of the accident, the initial cost of the vehicle, the cost of buying an equivalent replacement vehicle (using an appraisal guide like Kelley Blue Book), and the condition and value of the replacement vehicle.

In our next blog entry, we will discuss some alternative methods of valuating damages when market value or replacement value are not viable options. A San Antonio car accident lawyer can assist you with your property damage and auto accident injury claims in San Antonio and Austin.

So what exactly is market value ? Texas cases define market value as the price the vehicle would fetch if it were offered for sale. In the event of a car accident, the market value is the difference in value of the vehicle immediately before and after the collision. In cases where the vehicle is completely destroyed, then the damages are measured as the value of the vehicle just before the accident minus the salvage value. This is why that more often than not, in the case of older vehicles, after an accident , the most you will receive from the insurance company is the salvage value of the vehicle where the repair costs far outweigh the market value.

The county where the auto accident occurred is the marker for determining market value. As such, an Austin car collision might be valuated differently than a San Antonio auto damage case. I have referred to some different ways for determining valuation damages. There are certain types of property that will be subject to this market valuation method i.e. the difference in the value of the item immediately before and after the damage. For example, Texas courts have stated automobiles, machines and equipment, and even animals are subject to market valuation methods for loss valuation. Interestingly, an owner can recover for the death or injury of a beloved animal in a San Antonio auto collision.

Although many owners who lose an animal in a car accident would vehemently argue for the sentimental value of their treasured animals, the recovery for an animal’s death is limited to the market value. Sometimes, in the cases of animals that have high monetary value for their special characteristics or usefulness, the owner can bypass market value and obtain a greater recovery. For example, seeing-eye dogs or dogs with unique breeding potential have been assessed actual values based on their monetary value. Unfortunately, owners cannot obtain a monetary recovery for the pain and suffering related to an animal’s injury or death.

The cost of repair is another component of market value. In certain cases, an injured plaintiff can recover repair damages in addition to market value. Texas courts have ruled that when market value is determined before repairs are made, an injured party can recover either the cost of the repair of the lower difference in market value. Both market value and cost of repairs however cannot be recovered when the market value is assessed before the repairs are done. Where the market value is determined after the repairs are made, then an injured party can obtain both the cost of repair and the difference in market value.

This may be a little confusing given the last paragraph. The best way to explain this concept is that the cost of repair is not the same as a loss of market value if the market value is based on a comparison of the property before damage and the value after repairs. If you believe an insurance company is not properly compensating you for the loss of damage to your vehicle, Baseluos Law Firm can assist you with both your auto injury and property damage claims. In our next blog entry, we will discuss methods of proving market value and other methods of valuating property loss in Texas collision and negligence cases.