Texas Injury Lawyer Blog

Recent legislation proposed in the Texas Legislature would allow Texas college students to carry concealed handguns. Arming every Texas college student is probably not the best way to address the concern for the safety of our students on college campuses. The decision as to when to use a deadly weapon in self defense or the defense of others requires extraordinary judgment. Some have argued that if an 18-year-old is old enough to join the military, fire automatic weapons in combat, and die for their country then they are old enough to carry a handgun while going to class. This is false logic. The military provides specialized weapons training and soldiers use those weapons pursuant to direct orders and a rigorous chain of command. While many 18-year-olds are extremely competent with firearms the judgment regarding when to use a firearm is something that is more likely to come with age and experience.

This is not to say that the notion of having numerous concealed weapons on campus is a bad idea. Any adult working on campus should be authorized, and even encouraged, including by the payment of a stipend, to obtain a concealed handgun permit and to carry a concealed handgun on campus. Offering tuition discounts to graduate students or other older students who agree to complete a concealed handgun course and carry a concealed weapon while on campus is another viable option. However, allowing every 18-year-old college student the option of carrying a weapon on campus has the potential for obvious problems. Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment. We don't want our college students learning judgment with handguns on our college campuses.

For more information contact a Tyler Injury Attorney today.

Medicare does not have a lien of any kind or nature let alone a "super lien." Medicare has a statutory subrogation interest in the personal injury claims of Medicare beneficiaries for whom Medicare has paid accident related medical expenses. A lien is a property interest and an attorney possessing the property of another has certain ethical obligations and fiduciary duties regarding the handling of that property. Thus an attorney in possession of settlement funds in which a third party has a lien has a responsibility to see that the lien is not violated. The notion that Medicare has a lien upon personal injury claims was first fabricated by unscrupulous Medicare contractors who were collecting Medicare funds on a commission basis. These collection agents referred to the Medicare subrogation interest as a "lien" in an attempt to improve their negotiating position. This abuse came to a head in the case of Zinman v. Shalala when the Federal Court held that Medicare did not have a lien and ordered Medicare and its contractors to stop using the word lien to describe their subrogation interest.

A subrogation interest is an interest that attaches to a beneficiary's right to make a claim. A subrogation interest reaches the claim and the beneficiary but does not reach the beneficiary's attorney leaving the attorney free to act in the best interest of the beneficiary. Medicare's subrogation interest is a creature of statute. While Medicare clearly does not have a "super lien" it might fairly be said that Medicare has a "super subrogation interest."

The Medicare recovery statute at 42 CFR §411 creates a number of rights, duties, and obligations for not only the Medicare beneficiary but also for insurance companies, health care providers, and attorneys. Anyone dealing with a beneficiary who has received Medicare benefits in connection with an accident would be well advised to study the Medicare recovery statute carefully as Medicare's right of recovery is neither a lien or a subrogation interest but actually a complicated hybrid of the two interests.

For more information contact a Tyler Accident Attorney today.

Breed specific laws aimed at pit bulls, rottweilers, and the other more dangerous breeds would be unlikely to provide relief from the growing incidence of dog attacks in Tyler, Texas. This is not to say that pit bulls and rottweilers are not more likely to cause harm than the other breeds. When a Chihuahua goes rogue you need new shoelaces. When a pit bull goes off you need a new leg. However, the problem of enforcing breed specific laws would be insurmountable and the effect insignificant.

Tyler and the surrounding East Texas area has a problem with attacks by "yard dog" pit bulls. The profile of a "yard dog" pit bull is a dog which appears to have numerous pit bulls in its' family tree but which has no papers. The American Kennel Club has never heard of this dog. It does not have a collar and has never seen a veterinarian's office. It hangs around the yard and sometimes gets fed and sometimes does not get fed. Its' true breed can be determined only by very sophisticated scientific procedures and if it bites someone its owner will deny ownership. Breed specific legislation will be unlikely to have any effect on "yard dog" pit bulls and will only be a burden to the responsible owners of registered, well cared for, well mannered pit bulldogs.

The notion that the owners of large dogs which are allowed to run free should be required to carry insurance has merit. Not because the owners of most farm dogs will ever need the insurance but because it will allow an additional enforcement vehicle for local agencies. Large dogs should also be required to wear a collar that has ownership information and proof of current vaccinations attached to the collar. When a constable or animal control officer sees a large unrestrained dog the officer can easily check for insurance violations, vaccination violations, and identity violations and appropriate citations can be issued. If the dog is not collared and the owner of the property on which the dog is found denies ownership of the dog then it should go to the local animal shelter.

Such a statutory scheme would give local animal control officers a workable method of removing unrestrained, uninsured, uncollared, unvaccinated dogs from the community and would have a significant impact on the problem of the "yard dog" pit bull.

For more information contact a Tyler Dog Bite Attorney today.

Although incorporation provides a substantial amount of insulation to the owners from liability for injury claims the insulation is not absolute. Texas law provides that the owners of a corporation may be held individually liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation in the situation where the corporate fiction is used to perpetrate a fraud, for the owners' benefit, to evade legal obligations, or to circumvent a statute. The corporate veil may be pierced in the situation where the corporate insurance and assets are insufficient to meet the reasonably anticipated debts and liabilities of the corporation.

While the notion that incorporated businesses should be able to attract investors or shareholders without the investors or shareholders being exposed to liability for the day to day operations of the corporation is desirable many have sought to abuse the corporate fiction resulting in the doctrines regarding the piercing of the corporate veil.

Take for example the situation in which a logging contractor holds all of the assets of his business in his individual name and leases them to his incorporated logging business. The contractor then buys minimal or no liability insurance. The incorporated business is both undercapitalized and underinsured in light of the reasonably anticipated risks associated with operating log trucks on the public roadway. In such a situation the corporate veil may be pierced and the individual owner may be held personally responsible for corporate liabilities.

For more information contact a Tyler Injury Lawyer today.