Personal Injury Law
Personal Injury Law Questions? Ask Personal Injury Lawyers.
in relation to approximate damage, if the damages started at one thing then they increased, when damages were no more then 500 would you question the amount by the fact of the damages being a finder bender and it is not possible to reach that amount. or, can a person just give their insurance company a copy of an amount paid and they will reimburse them the amount their client paid out, if that is so it not possible of proving that the amount is not true due to the paper trial even if its false
It's probably not good to take the position that there's no way that the damages resulting from the accident could be that much because it really doesn't take much in terms of auto repair OR medical treatment to get into the thousands of dollars.
Also, an insurance company is not going to just take the word of their insured and reimburse the person based on a representation made. Instead, the insurance company will require copies of bills and possibly even medical records. If the insurance company is satisfied that the documentation is complete, then it can pay out.
The claim will have to be established with damages/proof of damages, and if teh party has no documentation to support the claim, then no court is going to allow it to stand.
yes that's true but i,m speaking about if a car was bumped and minor damages close to none occurred the amount started at 500 for car then it jumped up to 5000 is there procedure to check that or a person is out of luck when the paper work starts. my question surrounds protections from insurance fraud or crafty individuals using legal process in a false manner as a racket to fleece individuals unjustly.
can you challenge the medical based on the damages that occurred, that any reasonable minded person could see that this could not or would not be the result of any bodily harm to a passenger when there was no head on collision, or is medical bills not based on a person being harmed?
would this occur in a different court because the collection agency is saying this the amount but they have not produced any evidence of hospital bills or picture's the day of the accident, and can the doctor be any doctor?,also the documents they released are not filled in there one point were it states that all the statements are true under penalty of perjury its left blank with no signature
yes the other question is if the collection agency has not proceeded in court but has proceeded with presentments that you owe would you file a complaint in a federal court dew to them not being in your state. to challenge the claims of amount or any liens that they would used as a tactic to force payments without giving pictures of damages?
i was informed they have not attempted to sue (creditor) but has tried to go after licence without evidencing facts to what the cost or providing pictures so they can be compared with pictures the day of accident.
against collection agency would this bar them from interfering with the licence because there defense would be we received the debt from our client and there not responsible for the claim
but what if they have contacted bmv of an amount owed to put lien on operator licence without evidencing the amount to the party at fault. also the documents have been insufficient i.e. no signature on estimates for damages of car. the collection agency has said that their client (insurance company) has paid this amount out and that's why their asking for that amount but will not send documents showing why the amount was paid out just a blanket statement of what was paid out
You would have to contact the dept. of motor vehicles and ask for instructions/information on how to challenge a lien through the administrative procedures that are in place.
You should be able to file a challenge to any lien based on the lack of documentation.
you know what i realize, correct me if im wrong, there a private side and public side of law private law pertains to contracts that individuals may draft between themselves how ever if there is a controversy and all of the points are there to create a binding assumpsit then it can be heard in a court of law which becomes public,
In anothersense, a law or statute that applies to thepeople generally of the nation or state adoptingor enacting it, is denominated a public law, ascontradistinguished from a private law, affectingonly an individual or a small number of persons.Morgan v. Cree, 46 Vt. 773, 14 Am.Rep. 640.
so with agency that come into play by statutes or other acts of law they fall under administration of law i.e. public law. for one to gain remedy he would have to follow the procedures of that branch of administration, correct?
but isn't the difference that when your dealing with public law i.e. administrative law the remedy is an administrative remedy which is law but not necessarily judicial in nature, like you said for example to deal with a suspension or lien on your licence you would have to contact the bmv that is administrative law right, and follow there procedure to obtain remedy, it wouldn't be the same procedural wise as far as steps, however; laws pertaining substantive due process or procedural would remain the same in any tribunal, unless the court feels that the issue is not a fundamental right to be protected. correct?
explain that if you would? for you to appeal wouldn't there be a need of a administrative hearing for you to appeal from? or is the decision that was granted alone by the agency enough for you to appeal to a civil court and is a civil court higher than then the agency?
no i mean for example a person licence got suspended he or she feels that it not correct there was no hearing just like a lean, from there were does the party take it to contested it, due to the fact a state agency is limited by the grant of a states organic act and cannot deprive some one of a privileges or right without due process, im familiar with privileges be construed in some cases as not substantive rights and the only thing required to satisfy due process is a hearing or notification?
am i accurate in my understanding? another thing in case the collection agency is not suing but has put a lien on your licence the procedure to correct it if possible i.e. the licence would be the administrative approach, if the courts find that there was error then it bars the agency's decision, would it be needed to file a complaint against the collection agency that they have refused to release actual documents of proof damages and went forward to lien without providing proof.
you mean after you seek to appeal the lien on licence once it goes to the court then file a complaint that suits the case and file for discovery for documents from there mount your defenses on the facts
just for understanding this procedure of contacting a state agency would be considered administrative law? Are these procedures common by contacting the agency and going from what they allow or is these methods used based on the usual judicial proceedings that you have to apply to them ?
Yes, this would begin as an administrative proceeding through the dept of motor vehicles. The dept. will have its own rules regarding procedure, discovery, hearing proceedings, etc.
but are those procedures commonly used meaning these procedures are in place but the common citizen is not aware of it?
ok can you explain the term administration of justice, was this term coined after the reconstruction act of the states, or is the word just took for its literal meaning, ive read in a case law were some matters are not judicial in nature, one case stated that "`Proceedings of administrative officers and agencies are not quasi-judicial where there is no requirement for notice, hearing and the opportunity for introduction of evidence.'" Id., 53 Ohio St.2d at 176, 7 O.O.3d at 358, 373 N.E.2d at 1241. would these type of law be administrative. also is a judicial hearing distinguished from a administrative hearing being that it is not ministerial but rather deals with the facts of law pertaining to personal rights and not discretion?
can you explain this to me you stated that if a rule provides discretion in administering a rule what do you mean by discretion i found this in blacks law dictionary:
MINISTERIAL. That which is done under theauthority of a superior ; opposed to judicial; thatwhich involve& obedience to instructions, but demandsno special discretion, judgment, or skill.State Tax Commission of Utah v. Katsis, 90 Utah406, 62 P.2d 120, 123, 107 A.L.R. 1477. what is meant by opposed is that it is not judicial correct and that it demands no special discretion, judgement, or skill meaning that it can done without any set ruling etc?
so ministerial is this, the procedure,the rule of how it is done period! and that's that nothing more nothing less the judge cant say well i feel this way from what i heard so my judgement is this,however; in a judicial hearing the trier has to go by the facts but he can use his or her own discretion.
so ministerial is an mandate something that must be done correct? so does provisions of the constitution become ministerial when the provisions are self executing and the judge has a duty by his or her oath to support it?
example section 10 article 1 of Ohio state constitution states: In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to have a copy there of. from this if a person is request to know the nature accusation against him be it contempt or what have you, can the trier refuse to say if it is criminal or civil, is this a discretion call or at that point due to the provision of the constitution would this be ministerial demand? and would that be abuse of discretion?
but if he demands it can the trier say im not going to tell you due to his descretional ability's or discretion does not apply there. i really would like to get an understanding, is a matter ministerial based on legislation i.e. rules (law) or constitution etc, or is it ministerial because of legislation only not constitution. second we know that the courts have been granted judicial power to to hear cases of law and equity, by there respective constitutions, but judicially the judge is governed by the law meaning the law arises out of fact. like the example i gave earlier about demanding to know the nature of the charge or crime or what have you,these are fundamental rights that should be protected. were does discretion of the trier come in to avoid abiding by that rule, because a person left to his on discretion may not be impartial at times. so my question is what allows a trier to have discretion judicially when judicial findings have to be founded in our jurisprudence i.e. law, maxims, constitutional provisions, how does one hold a matter in honor and upon merit?
Why is the jurisprudence not being a determining factor like maxims or constitutions and case laws of judges using these maxims of law or the facts of the case to apply the law? Doesnt the legislation have to be in accordance to the constitution? Or it will be repugnant thus void? I want to give you an example O.R.C 2705.05 hearing for contempt proceedings.
(A) In all contempt proceedings, the court shall conduct a hearing.
However; in IN RE NEFF.20 Ohio App. 2d 213 (1969) it states that though the legislature has granted this, the inherent contempt powers of the court is not granted by the legislature and anything that does not grant can not limit, for the contempt powers are constitutionally granted. So my question is, why is the discretionary powers of the judiciary derived from statute when the judicial power of the judiciary comes from the constitution?
i guess im confused based on that the law of equity, the court has discretion to come up with an equitable conclusion and it may not have to be something written in law but in judicial matter it is based on the facts and the law governing those facts, yes; they may have statutes as a guidance but not to do away with the facts and the law governing the facts?
but what is the difference between equity and judicial tribunals
ok kinda confused equity is a principle? like a principle of law or a branch of american jurisprudence? i thought that equity and judicial are two jurisdictions based on the constitution that the judicial power of the courts extend to all cases in law and equity. another question a judicial tribunal is an administrative agency so would a court be an administrative agency also
so a judicial tribunal is any agency given authority to deal with cases hearing law and equity and they would be administrative agency's because they deal with the administration of justice? is that correct
ok correct if i,m wrong when i think of equity i think of cases that are not necessarily have a jurisprudence behind the conclusion it is based on what the judiciary feels is just and fair, when i think of law i think of maxims of law, constitution, stare decesis, facts of a case, statutes and rules which take place in a judicial tribunal
so i got an A on that one?
got another question going to closed out this one.