Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Oregon employees or others who blow the whistle and report violations of securities law to the SEC are now eligible for a bounty of 10% to 30% of money collected by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), so long as the total money collected exceeds $1 million. Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Law allows the whistleblower to remain anonymous by using an attorney to pass along the information. Also, if the employer knows the identity of the whistleblower, the employer may not discharge or discriminate against the employee because of an honest report.

The SEC may pay a monetary reward if the whistleblower's information is "original information." Original means that the whistleblower came up with the analysis or facts independently, and the SEC does not already have the information from any other source.

The whistleblower must make the claim within 3 years of the date of the time the employee knew or should have known of facts supporting the allegation of wrongdoing.

The whisteblower reward may not be claimed by people convicted of participating or by people whose job it is to uncover problems, such as employees of regulatory agencies, the Department of Justice, or someone who performs audits required by the SEC.

In some ways, the new Federal Law is duplicates Oregon's Whistleblower Protection Law, which protects employees from discharge or discrimination for reporting violations of any law. What's new is the chance to earn a bounty under the Dodd-Frank Law.

The above does not constitute legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. However, feel free to call me if you are an Oregon whistleblower and feel like you need legal counsel.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury and Employment Law
503-665-4234

Attorney Gloria Allred announced a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment in employment against David Boreanaz, of the TV show Bones. She also announced that she represents another woman, but did not file a lawsuit on her behalf. Instead, she sent the matter to a state agency to investigate. Here's my take on what that means, having used Oregon's State Agency at times and having filed sexual harassment cases in Oregon's courts.

First, we lawyers screen cases based upon whether we believe our clients. I assume that Ms. Allred believes that both of her clients felt victimized.

Next, we look at what evidence is in hand and consider what evidence is likely to be found later. When I file a lawsuit, it is because I believe there is enough evidence in hand to get the case to a jury. I assume that Ms. Allred believes she has enough evidence on Kristina Hagan's case to reach a jury. During the "discovery process" (definition here), she hopes to develop more evidence to win the case.

On the other hand, if an attorney feels like a client was legitimately harmed, but wants more evidence before risking a lawsuit, it makes sense to refer the case to the state agency. The state agency will then conduct an investigation. The agency could turn up more evidence, giving the attorney more confidence before filing a case.

We attorneys want to make sure we win the case, because no client wants to go through the expense and trauma of litigation unless the odds of winning are very good.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
503-665-4234

Is it time to file a civil suit over the disappearance of Kyron Horman? This post discusses the possibilities.

We all remember that O.J. Simpson was acquitted in criminal court but held responsible in a civil case. The reason, of course, is a lower burden of proof. For criminal cases, the state must prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt; in civil court the "preponderance of the evidence" is enough.

Typically, I advise crime victims hold off on any civil lawsuit until the criminal prosecution concludes. However, in this situation, the issue is not monetary compensation; it is discovering the truth.

Who could sue for what?

If we assume that Kyron is alive, then a conservator or guardian ad litem (definitions here) must be appointed to assert any claims for Kyron. The conservator or guardian for litigation does not need to be the father, Kaine, and, probably should not be the father. Kyron could assert claim for negligence against his stepmother if there is evidence to show that she failed to act as a reasonable parent on the day Kyron disappeared, and her actions caused him to disappear.

If, more likely that not, Kyron has died, then the court could appoint a personal representative of his "estate," who could file a lawsuit against Terri Moulton Horman for wrongful death under Oregon law. Once again, the question is whether there is enough evidence to believe, in good faith, that Terri was responsible for Kyron's death. Police and the District Attorney's office would need to cooperate with the lawyer for Kyron's estate to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to file the lawsuit.

Benefits of a civil lawsuit?

In a civil lawsuit, the lawyer for the plaintiff (the person suing) could require Terri Moulton Horman to appear for a deposition, which is questioning under oath. Terri would have to show up. The court could order her to answer any non-incriminating questions. Terri could assert her 5th Amendment Right and refuse to answer any question that she reasonably believed could subject her to criminal prosecution.

Then what?

The judge could order Terri to answer incriminating questions or lose rights in the civil lawsuit up to and including losing the entire lawsuit and owing a lot of money. In Lefkowitz v Cunningham, the Supreme Court noted that if a State compels testimony by threatening to inflict "potent" penalties, then that violates her constitutional rights. Some courts have held that requiring a person to decide between losing a civil case and answering incriminating questions violates the 5th Amendment.

If the judge ordered Terri to answer incriminating questions under the penalty of losing by default, then a very interesting question arises: If Terri testified that she killed Kyron, would she then be immune from prosecution? At a minimum, it is likely that the prosecution could not use Terri's deposition testimony against her if it was compelled in violation of the 5th Amendment.

So, is it time for a civil suit? The answer depends on following:

Q. Will the DA share enough evidence to support a good faith belief that Terri either (a) was negligent in the way she dropped off Kyron or (b) was legally responsible for Kyron's death.

Q. Are there non-incriminating answers that could be extracted from Terri at a deposition that would advance the investigation?

If so, then a civil lawsuit might make sense. However, it unlikely that Terri will answer any useful questions at a deposition.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
PediatricLaw.com
503-665-4234

Credibility is everything when an Oregonian decides to sue, whether it is for car accident personal injuries, sexual harassment, or legal malpractice, or anything. I just withdrew from a case arising in Oregon City before I even filed the lawsuit because I did not trust my client. This post discusses the concept of credibility and why it is so important for an attorney to work with his or her client to make sure the client is 100% credible.

Why is credibility everything?

The most important factor in whether you win your case is whether the jury (or defense attorney or claims examiner) believes you and likes you. Oregon judges instruct jurors that, "If you find that any person has intentionally given false testimony in some part, you may distrust the rest of the person's testimony." But beyond that, jurors are people. People do not empathize with or want to help people who they do not believe or like or relate to. I'd rather represent Mother Theresa with an iffy case than Adolf Hitler with what seems like a slam dunk case. Jurors will find a way to help Mother Theresa and find a way to give Hitler what he deserves.

Credibility is truth PLUS accuracy.

Credibility is not merely avoiding a lie. Just because you do not intend to deceive does not make you credible. Here's why.

At some point, defendant will want your deposition. You will swear to tell the truth, and a court reporter will record every word. If you guess wrong, then, later, the other attorney will call you on it. Even if your misstatement was small and not intentional, people will wonder what else you got wrong.

What you and your attorney should do to improve your credibility.

From the first day forward, there are many steps you can take to make sure your testimony is true, accurate and complete. Here are a few of them:

• Your attorney should tell you what information is important to keep track of.


• Keep track of important information in a systematic way; your attorney should help you with this.


• Before your deposition, you or your attorney should talk with other witnesses who have relevant information, so that you are fully informed. Sometimes, loved ones notice things about the injured person that the injured person does not notice about herself.


• Prepare and study for your deposition like you are taking the most important exam in your life. Your attorney should tell you about the process, the traps, and how the other attorney might behave. You need to know all of the pertinent dates, issues and facts so that you can give accurate testimony.

Performing well at your deposition shows the other side that you are a credible witness. A good performance dramatically increases the odds that you will achieve a fair settlement. A bad performance could sink you case.

I am shocked when I hear that some attorneys will "prepare" a client for his or her deposition immediately before the deposition begins. I think you should expect more from your own attorney.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

EEOC press releases show that terrible sexual harassment occurs frequently against immigrants in Oregon, Washington, and the rest of the nation. For example, the EEOC sued Allstar Fitness, which operates in Washington and Oregon, because one of its supervisors forced an employee to choose between sex with him and her job. (Supervisor Forzó Sexo en una Empleada Latina.) The company did not train employees on the laws against discrimination. It produced no written harassment policies and no complaint procedure.

In another case from a Mollala, Oregon nursery (Willamette Tree Wholesale, Inc.), the EEOC charged that Latina workers were sexually harassed, raped, and threatened.

EEOC charged a Washington state apple grower (Evans Fruit) with sexual harassment because supervisors assigned women to isolated jobs so that they could make sexual advances. The court issued an order stopping the company from retaliating against or attempting to influence any potential witnesses or victims during the time the case proceeds.

Other examples include a $260,000 settlement to an employee of Wilcox Farms, in Aurora, Oregon. Schiemer Farms, also of Oregon, fired two workers on their first day of work after they reported sexual harassment, and it cost Schiemer $14,500.

Latinas are not the only vulnerable immigrants who have been victimized. Sexual harassment in the Korean Community in Los Angeles is leading to settlements and educational efforts toward small businesses, to prevent harassment before it happens. The EEOC is hiring investigators who speak different languages in its effort to address discrimination against immigrant women in the workplace.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

You make an insurance claim in Oregon. The company reviews it, gathers information, and then denies it based upon some misstatement in your application. Can the insurance company do that? Maybe. Maybe not.

Oregon's insurance law is not well developed. The Oregon State Insurance Division recently issued a bulletin on this topic to insurers as to what it considers proper and improper.

First, Oregon's Insurance Division does not want insurance companies to intimidate people who apply for benefits. Insurance companies should not insert big warnings about fraud or misstatements in claim forms unless it included such warnings in the application for insurance.

Next, if the insurance company wants to cancel the contract, then the misstatement must be serious: either fraudulent or "material to the interests of the insurer." In other words, something minor and not meant to sucker the insurance company should not be the basis to cancel the insurance contract once you need the benefits for which you paid.

Even for simple denials of claims, the insurer should prove that the misstatement or concealment was either intentional or that the insurance company would not have issued the policy if you had filled out the application fully and accurately.

For life insurance and health insurance policies, the companies only have two years in which to contest coverage based upon misstatements in the application. For health insurance, the two-year limitation does not apply to those who procured insurance through fraud.

In addition to the above position of Oregon's Insurance Division, Oregonians also have some common law rights. For example, every contract includes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. If the insurance company is not acting in good faith, that is another basis on which to fight it.

Insurance Companies entice you with happy geckos and daffy clerks. Giddily, they collect your premiums. They become devious and difficult when you actually want them to pay for a serious claim. That's when you need the help of an attorney who knows the tricks they play and whether the insurer's actions are within the bounds of the law.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

Saturday evening, at Andina Restaurant in Portland, Oregon, I enjoyed dinner with Senator Ron Wyden. The experience reminded me how lucky we are to have smart, public-spirited people willing to devote their lives to the rest of us. Senator Wyden is running for re-election, and he needs our support in this time of anti-incumbent fever.

Senator Wyden has earned our support. From the beginning of his career, not for moneyed, behemoth corporations. People who view my website do so because they need help through litigation. Without the likes of Ron Wyden, your right to sue would be a lot less meaningful or useful. He has fought to preserve your legal rights against the constant assault by insurance companies. Insurance companies do not what you to obtain full compensation when you are hurt. Senator Wyden values and protects the rights of insurance-buying consumers.

Senator Wyden has achieved respect within the United States Congress because he is a serious man who works on solutions, unlike others who try to ride clever slogans into office. Only through years and years of hard work can a Senator build the reputation and develop the know-how to get things done for Oregonians. It would be just plain stupid to elect his opponent.

Please support him through his campaign website.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

Effective July 1, 2010, Oregon law prohibits most employment discrimination based upon credit history. Covered employers may not reject applicants with bad credit histories. Those employers may not demote, suspend or otherwise discriminate against an applicant or employee with respect to terms of employment.

Exceptions that allow for the use of credit histories follow:

• Federally insured banks & credit unions
• Employers that are required by law to check credit histories
• Public agencies with respect to law enforcement officers.
• When the credit history is "substantially job-related. "

Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) promulgated rules on the new law. The rules state that a credit history is "substantially job-related" if the job requires "access to financial information not customarily provided in a retail transaction that is not a loan or extension of credit." Also, if the employer must check the credit history to obtain insurance or bonding, then it may obtain and discriminate based upon "credit history."

Oregon employers who obtain credit history under the "substantially job-related" exception must advise the person, in writing, that it is obtaining his or her credit history and why.

BOLI rules define "credit history" as communication by a credit reporting agency. Oregon law does not address bankruptcy, because it does not need to. United States Bankruptcy Law prohibits discrimination based filing bankruptcy.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

Last week, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, along with its counterparts in Canada and Europe, announced their initiative to establish international safety standards for window coverings. The problem is that various designs create pinch-points that injure and strangle children. Despite recalling tens of millions of corded Roman shades and roll-up blinds in the U.S. (in just the past 18 months) manufacturers continue to create and sell dangerous products with defective designs. Oregon law provides for product liability lawsuits for people injured by such dangerous products.

We all know that looped cords are a danger, and the simple solution is to clip the loop. Some products, however, cannot function if the cords are cut. Roller blinds are one such design.

For other window coverings, some Roman shades, for example, parents don't see the cord on the back that create risks of strangulation. To see what I mean, look at the photos found here.

For decades, this risk of child injury from window coverings has been known. However, manufacturers and stores continue to make and sell these defectively dangerous products. Although government efforts might help reduces the supply of these products in the future, it is up to parents to check what is covering windows now. Parents need to check their homes, day care, grandparents' homes and other places where your child lives and plays.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Representing injured children & their families
503-665-4234

Two Oregonians who were in car accidents called me this week with the same story: within 48 hours, representatives from the other guy's insurance company were knocking on their door. The insurance company vultures wanted these hurting victims to sign authorizations to get medical records. Also, the insurance company was gathering information on the injured person, their home, their family, whether they moved easily or with a limp. Certainly, they hoped to get statements that could be used against the personal injury victim.

These practices are unfair and should not be tolerated. So long as they happen, here's what you need to know:

1. Don't talk to the insurance company for the driver who hit you. You have no duty to cooperate with them. "Anything you say can and will be used against you." If you think you can settle the claim for the property damage only - to your car or truck - then have someone else (spouse, parent, child) do the talking for you and instruct them not to discuss your medical condition.

2. Don't provide any medical releases to the insurance company for the driver who caused the car accident. Odds are, it will use the releases to get information on you that goes well beyond this collision. Will the insurance company look for other medical conditions? Will they look for other potential sources for emotional distress? How many years back will they request records? DON'T DO IT.

3. If they knock on your door, do not open the door. Send them away. Do this regardless of how well they have practiced sounding empathetic. They have done this dozens (or hundreds) of times. They are trying to hurt your claim!

4. Be careful with your own insurance company. Your own insurance company is paying under the Persona Injury Protection (PIP) provision of policy. You must cooperate with your own company. However, be alert to signs that it is looking to cut you off. DO NOT GO TO AN "INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION." If your own insurance company wants to send you to its own doctor, the purpose is to cut off your benefits. Better to get cut off for failure to cooperate than to have a phony doctor come up with a phony analysis that can be used against you later. You need a lawyer at that point to, perhaps, negotiate a solution: perhaps another month of treatment without an insurance medical exam.

Bottom line: Get a lawyer to counsel you and protect your interests. Hire one right away.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

Oregon's Supreme Court held, once again, that experts may not provide opinions on whether another witness is truthful. Although State of Oregon v. Lupoli involved allegations of child abuse, its ruling on the law of evidence will help personal injury and car accident victims fight against bogus defense arguments. This post summarizes the key points.

For decades, Oregon Law has prohibited one witness from testifying on whether he believes another witness is telling the truth. (E.g., State v. Middleton). Yet, insurance companies continue to hire experts to call injured people liars. The basic scenario is this. Defendant hires a neurologist to testify that she does not find any "objective evidence" of pain, suggesting the problem is psychological. Next, the defense psychologist testifies that the person is malingering or scored high on something called the "fake bad scale."

Funny, no one tries to offer polygraph test evidence, yet defendants continue to offer voodoo lie detector tests as evidence. Unfortunately, some plaintiff's lawyers and judges let them get away with it.

The problem with a diagnosis of malingering is that it is an opinion that the injured person is lying. According to the DSM IV, "The essential feature of malingering is the intentional production of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychological symptoms motivated by external incentives such as . . . obtaining financial compensation." Under Oregon law, no such opinion is admissible.

The "Fake Bad Scale" was created by a defense expert. He (1) selected a relative small number of questions out of the well-regarded pencil-and-paper test (MMPI), (2) created his own scoring system, and (3) said that if you hit a certain score, you must be faking you injury. Somehow, insurance company defense attorneys claim that this is more reliable than a polygraph test and should be offered to a jury. Fortunately, some judges look at the questions selected by the expert, look at Oregon Law, and say, "Baloney, not in my court."

The take home message: civil trial lawyers must use criminal law precedents when protecting their personal injury clients from bogus defense tactics.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
http://www.jeffmerrick.com 503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

Most Oregon attorneys are ethical. A sexual harassment case out of Georgia, however, illustrates why being unethical is dumb and can be costly. After the employer presented a forged witness statement, the court struck all defenses, and let the case proceed on the question of how much money to pay the woman.

Terrible conduct started this case. The Chief Executive Officer of the financial company ran amok with sexual comments and groping of employees. The last straw for the woman, Evangelina Forsberg, was when James Penfanis (allegedly) reached around, grabbed her genitals, and proclaimed, in the presence of others, that she has a tiny vagina.

One of the coworkers / witnesses was David Popke. The company submitted a statement from Mr. Popke that he did not remember the conduct. However, when Ms. Forsberg's attorney tracked him down in another state, Mr. Popke said that he very much remembered what happened. Also, he remembered that the company asked him to sign the false statement, implying that his continued employment depended on it, but he refused to perjure himself. The court determined that the company perpetrated a fraud upon it, and struck defendant's answer and affirmative defenses, setting the case for trial. (61 FRD 694 (ND Ga. 2009))

Because of the physical contact, Ms. Forsberg sued for assault and battery against the Penfanis and the employer. The jury awarded $1 million on that claim plus $1 million in punitive damages. She sued the company for negligence in retaining Penfanis in his position of authority, and she won $100,000 plus $3 million in punitive damages for that claim. She also won awards for the sexual harassment and retaliation totaling another $550,000 plus $3 million in punitive damages.

The employer engaged in other questionable conduct in its attempt to avoid accountability, such as trying to shift assets. Fortunately, Ms. Forsberg and her attorney fought on, knowing that this guy and the corporation that enabled him should be taught a lesson.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

In the past week, I've received five calls from people in Portland, Eugene, & Lake Oswego, Oregon who want to sue their former Attorneys. The cases have ranged from simple to complex to no cases at all.

The classic example came from one caller, "I had a car accident and my attorney did not file the lawsuit on time." With a situation like that, my job is to determine what the client should have received from the lawsuit ("damages"), and then pursue the claim against the lawyer to pay the damages instead of the guy who caused the car accident. Fortunately, in Oregon, all attorneys have a minimum amount of malpractice of $300,000.

Another caller really had no case. In Eugene, she had a car accident. Her lawyer, she said, worked slowly and did not return her calls. She fired him and hired a second law firm. In the end, she received the policy limits on her Underinsured Motorist Policy. Unfortunately, the total dollar amount was still too small to cover her total losses. But that was not the fault of the attorney.

Yet another caller hired me to review complex business litigation involving motions for restraining orders and injunctive relief. Things did not work out as planned, and his company suffered losses. I was able to review the matters and give my "second opinion" on what the first lawyers had done.

Professionals, whether they are doctors, attorneys or real estate salespeople, owe their clients the duty to provide services to the standard of care provided by other such professionals. If they do not, and if it causes you a loss, then you have a right to sue. Every case involves the same questions:

1. What would other professional have done under the circumstances?
2. Did your attorney (or doctor or realtor) meet that "standard of care?"
3. Did the breach of the standard of care result in a change of circumstances or outcome? If so, then,
4. What is the dollar value of the loss?

Those are the questions to consider if you have a problem with your lawyer. And remember, claims against Oregon Attorneys must be filed within two years of the date a person should have known he or she had a claim.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

Monday in Portland, Oregon was typical. The weather changed from nice to rainy, I had my plan to work for four different clients. My plans always get a bit side-tracked by people who call seeking help from an attorney. Today, I reviewed records and spoke with a Salem man who wants to sue his spine surgeon for medical malpractice, a Portland woman who asked me about sexual harassment, and a Portland man who discovered unhealthful mold in his rental condominium. I will not represent any of them.

So, together, I probably gave away 1-½ hours of my time today. I don't mind; it's part of my job. Usually, I'm happy to help. However, sometimes people think that I should give more than my initial screening and initial thoughts. Some get quite indignant, as if I'm wrong to want to be paid for my 30 years of legal study and practice. When I ask them if they would be willing to donate their time to help me with my issues, like yard work or cleaning the garage, often, they get my point.

Pro bono is a term that refers to free help from attorneys for needy people or causes. Typically, attorneys recognized for pro bono work are big firm lawyers who do not bill for a particular job, yet never miss a paycheck. They carefully track their hours (perhaps the firm gets a tax break). Then, they can say they donated 30 hours for a particular cause. That's good, and they deserve recognition.

For lawyers who help people -- "plaintiff's lawyers" as we are known -- we give out free help to people just about every day. In a year, I probably give over 200 hours of time, and other plaintiff's lawyers probably do the same. I help a lot of people: both those who think they have a claim plus those who do not get sued because I explained the law to someone who wanted to sue them.

Here's my best potential client (PC) question:

PC: My boss at work was harassing me and then he fired me. I'm probably the best worker on site. I think I have a case.

Me: Why do you suppose he did that?

PC: I slept with his wife, but they were separated at the time. . . .

Sorry dude, sleeping with the boss's wife is not protected activity.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

This week in Portland, Oregon, Deanna B. testified against her former employer, Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. (NYSE: BKD). Ms. Bettencourt used to provide care for residents of Wynwood Mt. Hood, an assisted living facility. Like other such facilities and nursing homes in Oregon, Wynwood Mt. Hood has been cited for abuse and neglect because it employed too few employees to care for residents.

During Deanna's tenure, the assisted living facility served 82 residents. Brookdale promised those 82 residents services that would take a full page to list, including meals, laundry, help getting to appointments, help getting to the toilet (or cleaning up when help came too late), help with pets, medication, etc. Last year, the State of Oregon cited Brookdale when resident needs were not being met because it employed only two people on night shift for all residents. Obviously, when both employees were needed to help someone get to the bathroom, no one was available to assist any of the other 81 people.

The stingy ways of the Executive Director included altering the time cards of employees without their knowledge. Deanna complained about it. She challenged the integrity of her boss, repeatedly. Her boss then changed her working situation, wrote her up for things, and fired her. We sued, alleging that the company retaliated against Deanna for making her wage claims and accusing the company of stealing from her.

During the litigation, we have discovered other practices that we believe are improper. For example, those three employees on night shift must remain on call, even during their meal periods. They cannot take lunch or dinner in their cars. Employees remain on call to assist residents. Yet, despite being on call, Brookdale Senior Living does not pay them for their on-call time. We believe that violates wage statutes and is more evidence of how the company does whatever it can to reduce costs, whether or not proper. See, OAR 839-020-0004(20) & 839-020-0041.

I've sued assisted living facilities / nursing homes before, and I've learned too much to remain naive. I've told my wife that if I ever need to be in one long term, please leave a gun under my pillow. I'd rather kill myself than live in some of these places, in which the facility does not keep all of the bright promises made to prospective residents and their loved ones.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.