If you carry motor vehicle insurance (and you should if you drive!), an element of your coverage is called medical payments coverage, or medpay. Many people do not know what this coverage is for.

Furthermore, many people don’t have much of it. Most people have only $5,000.00 in medpay. Many people only have $1,000.00 of the coverage.

Medpay is coverage available to pay the medical bills you may incur as a result of medical treatment you require for injuries suffered in an automobile accident. It is available to be used by you even if the accident you were in, and the injuries that you suffer as a result of it, were the fault of the other driver.

Injury victims should use their medical payments coverage to pay their medical bills for injuries caused by another driver’s negligence because use of this coverage can help the injured person keep more of the money that he or she may ultimately recover from a personal injury claim arising from the accident. If you suffer injuries in an automobile accident that another person causes, and you submit your medical bills to your health insurance carrier, your health insurance carrier will have a lien over any recovery you obtain from a personal injury claim against the person at fault. This means that your health insurance carrier will be able to recover–from any settlement or judgment you obtain from the person at fault–the monies that it paid for your medical bills, or at least a portion of those monies. Your motor vehicle insurance carrier, by contrast, has no lien relative to the medical bills it pays under your medical payments coverage. So, if you use your medical payments coverage rather than your health insurance to pay medical bills related to treatment for your accident injuries, you will be able to keep for yourself a larger portion of any settlement or judgment that you obtain from your personal injury claim.

For these reasons, you should also carry as much medical payments coverage as you can afford. Five thousand dollars doesn’t go far if another’s negligence causes you to need treatment in an emergency room. In order to make sure that you receive all the compensation that you deserve when you suffer injuries because of another person’s negligence, you should consult an experienced personal injury attorney such as one of the attorneys at Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. in order to protect your interests. Call us at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out our online Contact Form.

President Obama recently announced that the United States would pull its troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. This announcement likely means that many soldiers will be returning to civilian status and seeking jobs–in many cases the jobs they held before they were deployed.

Returning soldiers and their employers need to be aware that returning soldiers hold special rights to reinstatement under a Federal law called the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Under USERRA, the employer of a returning soldier must reemploy the soldier if the soldier meets certain conditions. First, the soldier must have provided the employer advance notice of his service. Second, the soldier’s absence from employment must not have exceeded five (5) years. Third, the soldier must report the intent to obtain reemployment within 90 days of the completion of the soldier’s period of service.

Employers that violate USERRA face steep penalties. The employer must pay all lost wages the returning soldier incurs as a result of the employer’s breach of its duty to reemploy the soldier, plus an additional amount equivalent to the soldier’s monetary losses as “liquidated damages” for a willful violation of the law or a reckless disregard of it. The employer must also pay the soldier’s reasonable attorney’s fees.

If you have returned from service and have been denied reemployment by your employer at the time of your deployment, you should contact an experienced employment discrimination attorney such as the attorneys at Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. to make sure your rights are protected. Call our office at 1-800-240-1988 or complete our online contact form.

Chuck Douglas and Jason Major of Douglas, Leonard & Garvey just finished a two-week long jury trial in Merrimack County with a $150,000.00 victory against the New Hampshire Department of Corrections in a free-speech case brought by correctional officer Mark Jordan. Here is a copy of the jury verdict form completed by the jury.

Mr. Jordan was suspended without pay or benefits for a year following a parking lot altercation started by another Corrections Department employee on March 10, 2010. Corrections Commissioner William Wrenn also referred the case to the State Police for criminal charges against Mr. Jordan. Evidence that demonstrated that the other employee was the aggressor was available to but ignored by Commissioner Wrenn. The aggressive employee, who had a history of angrily confronting his co-workers, was not placed on suspension or charged with any crime.

Why was Mr. Jordan singled out and placed on a year-long suspension without pay if he was not the aggressor in the parking lot incident? Mr. Jordan happens to be the president of the New England Police Benevolent Association chapter that represents New Hampshire correctional officers. He had been a vocal advocate for the safety of his fellow officers in late 2009 and early 2010, going on the record to challenge what his union saw as dangerous choices to layoff 56 correctional workers (leading to unsafe levels of understaffing), and Commissioner Wrenn’s support for SB500, a bill which proposed the early release of violent offenders and provided weaker sentences for parole violators. Mr. Jordan also began an investigation of allegations of corruption at the Men’s Prison in Concord related to excessive force charges against a fellow correctional officer, which he also made public.

Following the voicing of his opinions in early 2010, Mr. Jordan’s previously strong personal relationship with Commissioner Wrenn broke down, and when the parking lot altercation occurred on March 10, 2010, Wrenn seized the opportunity to attempt to silence and discredit Mr. Jordan by placing him on suspension and under a criminal investigation (which led to a simple assault charge) for a full year. Mr. Jordan was acquitted of the criminal charges against him on February 28, 2011, and finally returned to his job in June of 2011. The State did provide him with back-pay for the year of work he missed, and retroactively reinstated his health insurance.

However, the State refused to acknowledge the damage done to Mr. Jordan while he was out of work without pay. Mr. Jordan fell behind on his bills and his family had to make sparing use of medical care despite a serious health condition that Mr. Jordan suffers from (which came to light after he was assaulted by an inmate in 2009). Mr. Jordan’s wife Pam described the year without pay and benefits, with bogus criminal charges hanging over Mr. Jordan’s head, as being a “year of hell,” with fear and desperation predominating over their family during that time.

The case was tried before Superior Court Judge Richard McNamara from October 18 through October 28, 2010, resulting a verdict for Mr. Jordan in the amount of $150,000.00. The case was tried under RSA 98-E, a statute which guarantees the free speech and criticism rights of State employees like Mr. Jordan. It is believed to be the first jury verdict under RSA 98-E. The statute provides for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party as well as damages. The case received press coverage in both the Union Leader and Concord Monitor.