Lansing Personal Injury Lawyer - Consumer Protection

Special Needs Children Pay When Insurance Companies Don’t

David Mittleman — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:29:44 GMT

Last week I posted an article about Blue Cross Blue Shield and its agreement to pay families of autistic children a total of $1 million for behavioral therapy coverage. Although this settlement is a step in the right direction, health plans have a long way to go before children with special needs receive fair treatment.

Developmental problems are pervasive in their nature. They affect nearly every aspect of a child’s life. Some disorders, such as birth-trauma induced cerebral palsy, impact both the mental and the physical development of the child. As a result, these children often require specialized equipment, supplies, services, or devices able-bodied children do not need.

Unfortunately, health plans and insurance companies characterize such special requirements as not "medically necessary" - almost always at the plan administrator’s sole discretion - and deny these benefits. As a result, many families are forced to pay expenses out of pocket or to make the unsettling choice of forcing their child to do without the needed benefit. Compounding the insult is the fact that the law makes it exceedingly difficult to reverse the decision of the plan administrator.

One glaring example of the anti-consumer state of the law is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Originally designed as a measure to protect workers and ensure they would receive the promised benefits of their employment, a series of court decisions over the past two decades gave plan administrators tremendous authority to deny claims. Only very recently have some Courts begun ruling in favor of individuals instead of corporations.

The time period in which to challenge an adverse decision is usually very limited. If your health plan has denied a claim you believe you are entitled to, contact us to see if we can help.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Clauses Perpetuate Injustice

David Mittleman — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:32:41 GMT

When someone is wronged by another, he or she expects to find recourse in our justice system. When a corporation takes advantage of a consumer, that person often takes solace in the fact that she will have her day in court. More and more, however, these hopes and expectations are never realized. Victims are shocked to learn that they have contractually signed away their right to go to court.

Many (if not most) consumer contracts, from cell phone plans to credit card agreements, now contain what are known as Pre-Dispute Mandatory Binding Arbitration clauses. These clauses require that any dispute that should arise out of the contract must be settled by binding arbitration rather than by filing suit in a court of law. Nearly always, the result is worse for the consumer. Arbitration clauses are usually hidden in dense legal documents, making it hard for the average person to even know if the contract contains such a provision. Even if the consumer is aware of the mandatory arbitration requirement, he or she cannot negotiate it out of these all-or-nothing contracts of adhesion.

In many cases, these pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses result in manifest injustice. National Public Radio (NPR) recently reported on one of the most appalling instances of the iniquity of mandatory binding arbitration clauses. A 20-year-old female Halliburton employee working in Iraq was brutally assaulted by her coworkers, resulting in devastating and permanent physical and emotional injuries. When the Justice Department refused to intervene, this young woman sought accountability by suing in civil court. Unbelievably, the company insists that the case must go to binding arbitration rather than a judge and jury.

Pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration agreements represent a fundamentally unfair method for holding corporations responsible for their wrongdoings. Consumers and employees are kept in the dark as to their rights, and they are not free to bargain for a better deal. Instead, they must "take it or leave it" and run the risk of facing a potentially biased tribunal who will decide the outcome of their case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

It’s Time To Rescue Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act

David Mittleman — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:48:13 GMT

Michigan’s once treasured Consumer Protection Act now sits in squalor thanks to the Engler dominated Michigan Supreme Court of the past few years. Last year marked the ultimate demise of any remaining teeth the law may have had when the Court, led by sleeping ex-Chief Justice Cliff Taylor exempted most, if not all, business regulated by state or federal law, such as home improvement contractors, mortgage companies, and plumbers.

In the midst of a housing fiasco the likes of which this society has never seen, consumers who were victims to the tactics of predatory mortgage companies find little solace in knowing that justice to the state’s highest court meant protecting big business instead of average citizens. Moreover, if you’re lucky enough to get financing for a new home, but you can only afford one that needs substantial renovations, you can forget about relying on the Consumer Protection Act as a guarantee that those roof shingles get fixed by builders.

With a new face on the state’s Supreme Court, and a chance to remove another justice (Robert Young) in 2010 who prefers corporate welfare over true justice, it’s time the Supreme Court roll up their sleeves and get to work on undoing the carnage of the past few years.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

GM-Certified Used or Welded Together Wrecks?

David Mittleman — Tue, 05 May 2009 10:59:56 GMT

State Consumer Protection Acts have been enacted in every state in the nation to protect consumers. Each state law varies in the degree to which they are effective. Michigan's Consumer Protection Act bans 29 unfair, deceptive or unconscionable business practices in the sale of goods and services. Once considered to be one of the best Consumer Protection Acts in the country, the Michigan Act has been rendered practically useless by two Michigan Supreme Court rulings. The first ruling, issued in 1999, was written by Justice Robert Young and supported by his conservative majority. That case ruled that businesses whose general conduct was specifically governed by another state law, were exempt from the act, even if the conduct was unfair or deceptive. Reaffirming its decision in 2007, but broadening the scope, the court exempted all businesses governed by federal or state law from the act, in effect, making Michigan a buyer beware state. Businesses exempt from the law include: banks, mortgage brokers, debt collectors, finance companies, home builders, home improvement contractors, new and used car dealers, auto repair shops, funeral homes, plumbers and electricians.

Back in 2004, Paulette Day, a 38-year-old Romulus homemaker, went to a Southgate dealership and purchased a $20,350, what she thought was practically brand new, GM-certified used, bright red Monte Carlo. She became suspicious about the car after a family member noticed blue paint on the gas cap. When Paulette attempted to return the vehicle under the GM satisfaction guaranteed policy, the dealership refused to honor the promise. Six months later, the Day’s hired an attorney, Dani Liblang of Birmingham, who had an expert examine the car. The expert determined that the car was actually two vehicles welded together as one and sold as a "demo". Now, while their case is pending in circuit court, the Days are stuck with a vehicle that makes funny noises and wears out tires quickly. Until the law is changed, consumers in Michigan will feel cheated and stuck fighting an uphill battle with little recourse.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman