Keep in mind that amount is also what the insurance company paid their OWN attorneys to fight this claim. Because that is how long they dragged the case out in litigation, depositions, discovery, etc. Also keep in mind that the case did not “settle” for $3,500. That was the cost of the surgery that the insurance company denied, which the court said was due.
That’s the whole point, though, isnt it? Why should the insurance company be allowed to spend about $60,000 denying and fighting a benefit and then – when a court says they owed the benefit all along – the injured worker’s lawyer is only paid $600? It clearly provides an imbalance that favors denying benefits knowing that the injured worker will not be able to fight it.
So, if you are going to complain about what the injured worker’s lawyer got paid when they ended up being right all along, maybe you should also be voicing your outrage at an insurance company willing to spend that amount just to deny a small benefit it owed all along.
And you really ought to think about what will happen if it is your mom, or sister or son that gets denied a surgery. Who is going to litigate their claim when their attorney will only get paid $600 for $60,000 hour’s worth of work?
Keep in mind that amount is also what the insurance company paid their OWN attorneys to fight this claim. Because that is how long they dragged the case out in litigation, depositions, discovery, etc. Also keep in mind that the case did not “settle” for $3,500. That was the cost of the surgery that the insurance company denied, which the court said was due.
That’s the whole point, though, isnt it? Why should the insurance company be allowed to spend about $60,000 denying and fighting a benefit and then – when a court says they owed the benefit all along – the injured worker’s lawyer is only paid $600? It clearly provides an imbalance that favors denying benefits knowing that the injured worker will not be able to fight it.
So, if you are going to complain about what the injured worker’s lawyer got paid when they ended up being right all along, maybe you should also be voicing your outrage at an insurance company willing to spend that amount just to deny a small benefit it owed all along.
And you really ought to think about what will happen if it is your mom, or sister or son that gets denied a surgery. Who is going to litigate their claim when their attorney will only get paid $600 for $60,000 hour’s worth of work?
Keep in mind that amount is also what the insurance company paid their OWN attorneys to fight this claim. Because that is how long they dragged the case out in litigation, depositions, discovery, etc. Also keep in mind that the case did not “settle” for $3,500. That was the cost of the surgery that the insurance company denied, which the court said was due.
That’s the whole point, though, isnt it? Why should the insurance company be allowed to spend about $60,000 denying and fighting a benefit and then – when a court says they owed the benefit all along – the injured worker’s lawyer is only paid $600? It clearly provides an imbalance that favors denying benefits knowing that the injured worker will not be able to fight it.
So, if you are going to complain about what the injured worker’s lawyer got paid when they ended up being right all along, maybe you should also be voicing your outrage at an insurance company willing to spend that amount just to deny a small benefit it owed all along.
And you really ought to think about what will happen if it is your mom, or sister or son that gets denied a surgery. Who is going to litigate their claim when their attorney will only get paid $600 for $60,000 hour’s worth of work?
Keep in mind that amount is also what the insurance company paid their OWN attorneys to fight this claim. Because that is how long they dragged the case out in litigation, depositions, discovery, etc. Also keep in mind that the case did not “settle” for $3,500. That was the cost of the surgery that the insurance company denied, which the court said was due.
That’s the whole point, though, isnt it? Why should the insurance company be allowed to spend about $60,000 denying and fighting a benefit and then – when a court says they owed the benefit all along – the injured worker’s lawyer is only paid $600? It clearly provides an imbalance that favors denying benefits knowing that the injured worker will not be able to fight it.
So, if you are going to complain about what the injured worker’s lawyer got paid when they ended up being right all along, maybe you should also be voicing your outrage at an insurance company willing to spend that amount just to deny a small benefit it owed all along.
And you really ought to think about what will happen if it is your mom, or sister or son that gets denied a surgery. Who is going to litigate their claim when their attorney will only get paid $600 for $60,000 hour’s worth of work?
Yeah, sorry about the multiple posts. I thought it didnt go through.
By the way, not to be difficult, but facts matter. The defense DID in FACT spend OVER $16,000 defending the claim. Here is the Supreme Court decision – look at page 6:
It’s there, clear as day in black and white. The insurance company spent $16,050 defending a claim that they were wrong to deny. A claim that only cost $3,000 in benefits. So why – if they were right all along – should the winning attorney not be paid a reasonable fee?
Again, Temblor – what if this was your mom? Do you really want her limited to an attorney that can only charge 8 bucks an hour?
And again – why are you so upset with what the court awarded the winning attorney (when they were right all along)… should you not be outraged that the insurance company paid $16,050 to fight a minimal benefit that they owed? Doesnt THAT make your insurance premiums skyrocket?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Tony, are you billing by the hour?
Temblor:
Keep in mind that amount is also what the insurance company paid their OWN attorneys to fight this claim. Because that is how long they dragged the case out in litigation, depositions, discovery, etc. Also keep in mind that the case did not “settle” for $3,500. That was the cost of the surgery that the insurance company denied, which the court said was due.
That’s the whole point, though, isnt it? Why should the insurance company be allowed to spend about $60,000 denying and fighting a benefit and then – when a court says they owed the benefit all along – the injured worker’s lawyer is only paid $600? It clearly provides an imbalance that favors denying benefits knowing that the injured worker will not be able to fight it.
So, if you are going to complain about what the injured worker’s lawyer got paid when they ended up being right all along, maybe you should also be voicing your outrage at an insurance company willing to spend that amount just to deny a small benefit it owed all along.
And you really ought to think about what will happen if it is your mom, or sister or son that gets denied a surgery. Who is going to litigate their claim when their attorney will only get paid $600 for $60,000 hour’s worth of work?
Temblor:
Keep in mind that amount is also what the insurance company paid their OWN attorneys to fight this claim. Because that is how long they dragged the case out in litigation, depositions, discovery, etc. Also keep in mind that the case did not “settle” for $3,500. That was the cost of the surgery that the insurance company denied, which the court said was due.
That’s the whole point, though, isnt it? Why should the insurance company be allowed to spend about $60,000 denying and fighting a benefit and then – when a court says they owed the benefit all along – the injured worker’s lawyer is only paid $600? It clearly provides an imbalance that favors denying benefits knowing that the injured worker will not be able to fight it.
So, if you are going to complain about what the injured worker’s lawyer got paid when they ended up being right all along, maybe you should also be voicing your outrage at an insurance company willing to spend that amount just to deny a small benefit it owed all along.
And you really ought to think about what will happen if it is your mom, or sister or son that gets denied a surgery. Who is going to litigate their claim when their attorney will only get paid $600 for $60,000 hour’s worth of work?
Temblor:
Keep in mind that amount is also what the insurance company paid their OWN attorneys to fight this claim. Because that is how long they dragged the case out in litigation, depositions, discovery, etc. Also keep in mind that the case did not “settle” for $3,500. That was the cost of the surgery that the insurance company denied, which the court said was due.
That’s the whole point, though, isnt it? Why should the insurance company be allowed to spend about $60,000 denying and fighting a benefit and then – when a court says they owed the benefit all along – the injured worker’s lawyer is only paid $600? It clearly provides an imbalance that favors denying benefits knowing that the injured worker will not be able to fight it.
So, if you are going to complain about what the injured worker’s lawyer got paid when they ended up being right all along, maybe you should also be voicing your outrage at an insurance company willing to spend that amount just to deny a small benefit it owed all along.
And you really ought to think about what will happen if it is your mom, or sister or son that gets denied a surgery. Who is going to litigate their claim when their attorney will only get paid $600 for $60,000 hour’s worth of work?
Temblor:
Keep in mind that amount is also what the insurance company paid their OWN attorneys to fight this claim. Because that is how long they dragged the case out in litigation, depositions, discovery, etc. Also keep in mind that the case did not “settle” for $3,500. That was the cost of the surgery that the insurance company denied, which the court said was due.
That’s the whole point, though, isnt it? Why should the insurance company be allowed to spend about $60,000 denying and fighting a benefit and then – when a court says they owed the benefit all along – the injured worker’s lawyer is only paid $600? It clearly provides an imbalance that favors denying benefits knowing that the injured worker will not be able to fight it.
So, if you are going to complain about what the injured worker’s lawyer got paid when they ended up being right all along, maybe you should also be voicing your outrage at an insurance company willing to spend that amount just to deny a small benefit it owed all along.
And you really ought to think about what will happen if it is your mom, or sister or son that gets denied a surgery. Who is going to litigate their claim when their attorney will only get paid $600 for $60,000 hour’s worth of work?
Temblor:
Yeah, sorry about the multiple posts. I thought it didnt go through.
By the way, not to be difficult, but facts matter. The defense DID in FACT spend OVER $16,000 defending the claim. Here is the Supreme Court decision – look at page 6:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2008/sc07-244.pdf
It’s there, clear as day in black and white. The insurance company spent $16,050 defending a claim that they were wrong to deny. A claim that only cost $3,000 in benefits. So why – if they were right all along – should the winning attorney not be paid a reasonable fee?
Again, Temblor – what if this was your mom? Do you really want her limited to an attorney that can only charge 8 bucks an hour?
And again – why are you so upset with what the court awarded the winning attorney (when they were right all along)… should you not be outraged that the insurance company paid $16,050 to fight a minimal benefit that they owed? Doesnt THAT make your insurance premiums skyrocket?
Anyhow, thanks for playing. But you were wrong.