Send Feedback E-mail this Article Print this Article Article Reprints
A 39-year-old Washington woman paralyzed from injuries caused in a car crash sued her insurer for denying coverage for surgery doctors agree could have prevented her paralysis.
Tara Sadler, a Yakima, Wash., resident and mother of two boys, filed the suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., claiming the insurer denied her neurosurgeon’s decision to repair a severe neck injury caused in an auto accident on Feb. 29, 2004.
The complaint alleges State Farm denied Sadler’s personal injury protection (PIP) claim to maximize its profits. By the time the insurance company approved Sadler’s claim, Sadler was paralyzed.
“This is the worst case of PIP insurance abuse I have ever seen,” said Karen Koehler, an attorney with the law firm Stritmatter Kessler representing the Sadlers. “We have letters from Sadler’s doctors that confirm State Farm’s delay of the surgery is the reason for her paralysis.”
According to law firm, the day of the accident, Tara Sadler and her husband Donald Sadler, were driving their 1999 Volkswagen Beetle on North First Street in Yakima. Another vehicle improperly crossed several lanes of traffic while fleeing from the police. Donald Sadler, the driver, slammed the car’s breaks to avoid a collision. Tara Sadler, sitting in the passenger seat and wearing her seat belt, was thrown forward as the car came to a sudden stop.
After the accident, Sadler had neck and shoulder pain on the right side and arm numbness with tingling and loss of use. She saw her family physician, who ordered physical therapy for eight weeks, the law firm said. According to the complaint, in the days and weeks following the accident, Sadler’s condition worsened.
Sadler decided to see a chiropractor in Yakima who stopped the physical therapy, reviewed X-rays, and made arrangements for an MRI on her neck. The MRI indicated a significant disc protrusion in her neck with spinal cord compression and her chiropractor directed her to see a surgeon.
According to the complaint, on June 11, 2004, Sadler saw an orthopedic surgeon in Seattle who agreed that the injury warranted immediate attention and referred her to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Srinivasan, who concurred that surgery would alleviate most of her neck, shoulder, and arm ailments.
Dr. Srinivasan contacted State Farm to inform them of the need for the surgery.
Sadler, who did not have health insurance, believed the remaining $18,000 of PIP coverage she purchased from State Farm would be sufficient to pay for the surgery, the complaint details.
“When I saw Dr. Srinivasan, she said the sooner I get to surgery the better the outcome would be,” said Tara Sadler.
As Sadler returned home, Dr. Srinivasan called State Farm to advise them of the need for surgery and verify the availability of funds. State Farm replied that Sadler’s PIP benefits would be suspended and were not available for the needed surgery, court documents say.
“State Farm had absolutely no basis to deny Tara’s surgeon’s conclusion,” attorney Koehler said. “State Farm decided to gamble with Sadler’s health to try to save a buck.”
One week after hearing that she needed immediate surgery, State Farm sent a letter to Sadler that benefits were being withheld pending an involuntary medical evaluation scheduled for July 19 — almost five weeks later. Meanwhile her medical condition continued to deteriorate, the suit states.
“By this point, the paralysis had now moved down her leg. People were noticing she was dragging her right leg when she walked,” Koehler said. “She was frightened and did not know where to turn.”
Tara hired Yakima attorney Scott Brumback, whose office began calling State Farm sometimes on a daily basis, the law firm said. As a result, State Farm agreed to move the involuntary medical exam up by four days to July 15, 2004. The examiner, Dr. Gorman, M.D., confirmed Dr. Srinivasan’s prognosis and pronounced Sadler’s condition a medical emergency, court documents show.
According to court documents, after Dr. Gorman examined Sadler he called State Farm to report Sadler needed immediate surgery but was told the State Farm claims manager was out of the office.
It took until July 20, 2004 — 37 days since Sadler’s surgeon urged immediate action — for the State Farm insurance adjuster to file the appropriate paperwork and approve Sadler’s surgery.
On July 29, 2004, Dr. Srinivasan performed the surgery, but it was unsuccessful in fixing the damage caused by the accident that was worsened by the delays in treatment, court documents show. Sadler is now bound to using a wheelchair.
“It is nothing new for insurance companies to unjustly put profits over people by denying PIP claims,” Koehler said. “But never have I seen this level of callous incompetence. We believe had State Farm done the right thing and stood by its promise to Tara, she would be walking today.”
The suit was filed in King County Superior Court in Seattle and seeks monetary damages
I am sure that the father deeply regrets, and must bear substantial pain from his negligent act. BUT, does he intend to alleviate the pain by shifting the blame to John Deere? I am sure there is a reason why Deere gives the option of whether to deactivate the blades when the mower is backing. p[erhaps safety reasons or perhaps some functionality reason. Whatever the reason, the initial cause of the accident is the father backing up over the kid, Sad, but true!!!
The lawsuit alleges that Deere & Co. was negligent in designing the mower with a switch that allows the driver to keep the blades spinning while driving in reverse. The lawsuit also names the seller, Ramsey-Waite Co. of Eugene, alleging the company did not adequately instruct Kirk Norton in the safe operation of the mower.
to: Anonymous
What’s your point. I believe that everyone read the excerpt that you cited. – Keep in mind that it is Plaintiff allegations, not FACTS. Is Deere the only Mfr. that have mowers with blades that spin while it is in reverse? is there a reason why that may be a feature that is useful or appreciated by users? Furthermore, a salesman’s 3-minute safety talk, should not relied upon wholeheartedly, and without the user/buyer reading the safety manual that comes with the mower. I guess common sense is not so common. Let’s get back to the first critical question, which is: Would you have ran over your child while operating the mower in reverse, if you knew the blades were not spinning??? or did you think that the blades were not spinning, so you thought that it was OK to run over your child?
Since the switch had to be positively activated to engage the blades while going in reverse the father had to know they were spinning. And you have a good point KOB, would he have run over his daughter regardless of blade activity? There is no fault in anyone here but the father. He should have read the operator’s manual, asked for more training, hired someone to do the work for him, something other than running over his daughter. He should also have kept his daughter clear of the area while working with equipment that can kill small children. He also needs to learn to look behind him while driving in reverse. I’m sure he feels like crud, but he’s completely at fault and shouldn’t get a dime.
Remmber: Unfortunately, the child’s leg is gone and no amount of money is going to replace it. As a claim professional, I’m constantly sickened by the way people attempt to escape personal responsibility and shift blame to someone else. In this case, the father is 100% at fault. Laws were drafted for a purpose. If you were not negligent you weren’t liable. Unfortunately in our pathetic society, it’s become less a matter of who is liable as it is who can pay. This accident should never have happened. In spite of any insurance money, un-deserved as it may be, this father cut his daughters leg off due to his own carelessness/stupidity so now he can say “Gee honey, sorry about the leg; but now you have some money. Very sad.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a law that would penalize Attorneys financially if they lose their case, for bringing on these frivolous suits that cost the taxpayers money. Make them reimburse the system for the complete waste and disregard for everyone’s time. Bet that would reduce the docket. I’m sick of this “let’s just throw it against the wall and see what sticks” attitude. This is contributing to the discourse of this country. Of course we know this could never happen, as the lawyers are the ones that make the laws.
English law has such a provision. If the plaintiff loses the case, he/she has to reimburse the defendants costs. This is a great system since it forces plaintiff’s to have some “skin in the game” and not file every absurd action they can. Our legal has been bastardized to the point of it being a mockery. Anybody can file a suit against anyone for anything and the courts will allow it. That forces otherwise innocent and negligent free defenants to incur costs, aggravation, and time. There should be a mandatory, binding, court arbitration to determine which cases have sufficient merit to proceed.
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.
About three months after Norton was injured, a 2-year-old boy was struck and killed by a lawn mower at a home south of Veneta
2007
Send Feedback E-mail this Article Print this Article Article Reprints
A 39-year-old Washington woman paralyzed from injuries caused in a car crash sued her insurer for denying coverage for surgery doctors agree could have prevented her paralysis.
Tara Sadler, a Yakima, Wash., resident and mother of two boys, filed the suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., claiming the insurer denied her neurosurgeon’s decision to repair a severe neck injury caused in an auto accident on Feb. 29, 2004.
The complaint alleges State Farm denied Sadler’s personal injury protection (PIP) claim to maximize its profits. By the time the insurance company approved Sadler’s claim, Sadler was paralyzed.
“This is the worst case of PIP insurance abuse I have ever seen,” said Karen Koehler, an attorney with the law firm Stritmatter Kessler representing the Sadlers. “We have letters from Sadler’s doctors that confirm State Farm’s delay of the surgery is the reason for her paralysis.”
According to law firm, the day of the accident, Tara Sadler and her husband Donald Sadler, were driving their 1999 Volkswagen Beetle on North First Street in Yakima. Another vehicle improperly crossed several lanes of traffic while fleeing from the police. Donald Sadler, the driver, slammed the car’s breaks to avoid a collision. Tara Sadler, sitting in the passenger seat and wearing her seat belt, was thrown forward as the car came to a sudden stop.
After the accident, Sadler had neck and shoulder pain on the right side and arm numbness with tingling and loss of use. She saw her family physician, who ordered physical therapy for eight weeks, the law firm said. According to the complaint, in the days and weeks following the accident, Sadler’s condition worsened.
Sadler decided to see a chiropractor in Yakima who stopped the physical therapy, reviewed X-rays, and made arrangements for an MRI on her neck. The MRI indicated a significant disc protrusion in her neck with spinal cord compression and her chiropractor directed her to see a surgeon.
According to the complaint, on June 11, 2004, Sadler saw an orthopedic surgeon in Seattle who agreed that the injury warranted immediate attention and referred her to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Srinivasan, who concurred that surgery would alleviate most of her neck, shoulder, and arm ailments.
Dr. Srinivasan contacted State Farm to inform them of the need for the surgery.
Sadler, who did not have health insurance, believed the remaining $18,000 of PIP coverage she purchased from State Farm would be sufficient to pay for the surgery, the complaint details.
“When I saw Dr. Srinivasan, she said the sooner I get to surgery the better the outcome would be,” said Tara Sadler.
As Sadler returned home, Dr. Srinivasan called State Farm to advise them of the need for surgery and verify the availability of funds. State Farm replied that Sadler’s PIP benefits would be suspended and were not available for the needed surgery, court documents say.
“State Farm had absolutely no basis to deny Tara’s surgeon’s conclusion,” attorney Koehler said. “State Farm decided to gamble with Sadler’s health to try to save a buck.”
One week after hearing that she needed immediate surgery, State Farm sent a letter to Sadler that benefits were being withheld pending an involuntary medical evaluation scheduled for July 19 — almost five weeks later. Meanwhile her medical condition continued to deteriorate, the suit states.
“By this point, the paralysis had now moved down her leg. People were noticing she was dragging her right leg when she walked,” Koehler said. “She was frightened and did not know where to turn.”
Tara hired Yakima attorney Scott Brumback, whose office began calling State Farm sometimes on a daily basis, the law firm said. As a result, State Farm agreed to move the involuntary medical exam up by four days to July 15, 2004. The examiner, Dr. Gorman, M.D., confirmed Dr. Srinivasan’s prognosis and pronounced Sadler’s condition a medical emergency, court documents show.
According to court documents, after Dr. Gorman examined Sadler he called State Farm to report Sadler needed immediate surgery but was told the State Farm claims manager was out of the office.
It took until July 20, 2004 — 37 days since Sadler’s surgeon urged immediate action — for the State Farm insurance adjuster to file the appropriate paperwork and approve Sadler’s surgery.
On July 29, 2004, Dr. Srinivasan performed the surgery, but it was unsuccessful in fixing the damage caused by the accident that was worsened by the delays in treatment, court documents show. Sadler is now bound to using a wheelchair.
“It is nothing new for insurance companies to unjustly put profits over people by denying PIP claims,” Koehler said. “But never have I seen this level of callous incompetence. We believe had State Farm done the right thing and stood by its promise to Tara, she would be walking today.”
The suit was filed in King County Superior Court in Seattle and seeks monetary damages
I am sure that the father deeply regrets, and must bear substantial pain from his negligent act. BUT, does he intend to alleviate the pain by shifting the blame to John Deere? I am sure there is a reason why Deere gives the option of whether to deactivate the blades when the mower is backing. p[erhaps safety reasons or perhaps some functionality reason. Whatever the reason, the initial cause of the accident is the father backing up over the kid, Sad, but true!!!
The lawsuit alleges that Deere & Co. was negligent in designing the mower with a switch that allows the driver to keep the blades spinning while driving in reverse. The lawsuit also names the seller, Ramsey-Waite Co. of Eugene, alleging the company did not adequately instruct Kirk Norton in the safe operation of the mower.
to: Anonymous
What’s your point. I believe that everyone read the excerpt that you cited. – Keep in mind that it is Plaintiff allegations, not FACTS. Is Deere the only Mfr. that have mowers with blades that spin while it is in reverse? is there a reason why that may be a feature that is useful or appreciated by users? Furthermore, a salesman’s 3-minute safety talk, should not relied upon wholeheartedly, and without the user/buyer reading the safety manual that comes with the mower. I guess common sense is not so common. Let’s get back to the first critical question, which is: Would you have ran over your child while operating the mower in reverse, if you knew the blades were not spinning??? or did you think that the blades were not spinning, so you thought that it was OK to run over your child?
Since the switch had to be positively activated to engage the blades while going in reverse the father had to know they were spinning. And you have a good point KOB, would he have run over his daughter regardless of blade activity? There is no fault in anyone here but the father. He should have read the operator’s manual, asked for more training, hired someone to do the work for him, something other than running over his daughter. He should also have kept his daughter clear of the area while working with equipment that can kill small children. He also needs to learn to look behind him while driving in reverse. I’m sure he feels like crud, but he’s completely at fault and shouldn’t get a dime.
Do you really know all the story or do you just think you do.
Remmber: Unfortunately, the child’s leg is gone and no amount of money is going to replace it. As a claim professional, I’m constantly sickened by the way people attempt to escape personal responsibility and shift blame to someone else. In this case, the father is 100% at fault. Laws were drafted for a purpose. If you were not negligent you weren’t liable. Unfortunately in our pathetic society, it’s become less a matter of who is liable as it is who can pay. This accident should never have happened. In spite of any insurance money, un-deserved as it may be, this father cut his daughters leg off due to his own carelessness/stupidity so now he can say “Gee honey, sorry about the leg; but now you have some money. Very sad.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a law that would penalize Attorneys financially if they lose their case, for bringing on these frivolous suits that cost the taxpayers money. Make them reimburse the system for the complete waste and disregard for everyone’s time. Bet that would reduce the docket. I’m sick of this “let’s just throw it against the wall and see what sticks” attitude. This is contributing to the discourse of this country. Of course we know this could never happen, as the lawyers are the ones that make the laws.
English law has such a provision. If the plaintiff loses the case, he/she has to reimburse the defendants costs. This is a great system since it forces plaintiff’s to have some “skin in the game” and not file every absurd action they can. Our legal has been bastardized to the point of it being a mockery. Anybody can file a suit against anyone for anything and the courts will allow it. That forces otherwise innocent and negligent free defenants to incur costs, aggravation, and time. There should be a mandatory, binding, court arbitration to determine which cases have sufficient merit to proceed.