Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

It is sad, tragic and depressing. A Medford, Oregon mom decided to drive her son and, we believe, 7 other young people. Four of the nine occupants did not wear seat belts. According to one witness, the car in front was driving slowly. When it turned off Upper Applegate Road, the mom hit the gas, up to 70 mph in a 45 mph zone. Because the people in the back were not belted, she goofed off by swerving to jostle them around. She lost control; the SUV left the road, and crashed.

Two people died: her son and Faith Vock, an 18 year old girl enjoying her summer with her uncle. Two others were hospitalized with serious injuries. The rest of the young people avoided major physical injuries but are traumatized for life.

Goofing off while driving often leads to irreversible and irreparable tragedy. We see it with teenage drivers, young drivers, and drivers impaired by alcohol or drugs. The Medford, Oregon tragedy shows that even middle-aged women can lose control when driving is used for amusement. How many times must it be said: "safety first."

The tragedy also points out how important seat belts are. The two young people that we lost were not belted. In the past, I have argued to the State Legislature that there ought to be a law requiring that drivers not transport people unless each one is in a seatbelt (HB 2536 - 2007). Safety advocates lost that argument to those who bemoan "the Nanny State." Maybe we should consider reviving that bill.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
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.

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

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

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.

Oregon's Statute of Limitations for filing a car accident injury lawsuit is two years, generally. There are exceptions. Last week, Oregon's Court of Appeals confirmed another exception that allowed an injured woman to continue a lawsuit she filed over three years after the motor vehicle accident.

This exception arises when the insurance company pays for some or all damage to the car or truck. There's a law that is supposed to encourage payment. It says that if the insurance company pays, it is not admitting liability. In other words, the insurance company can still fight you on who actually caused the car accident. On the other hand, if the injured person gets a check for damage to the car, she might think that the insurance company is NOT going to fight the personal injury claim for medical bills and other monetary damages, too.

The exception to the two-year statute of limitations deals with this risk of confusion. ORS 12.155 says the insurance company must tell the injured person when the statute of limitations expires within 30 days of the time it pays for property damage. If it does not, then the 2-year statute of limitations is placed on hold, or "tolled." The two-year clock starts running again when the insurance company sends the letter stating when is the deadline for filing the lawsuit.

This exception applies to the owners of the car, not necessarily to a passenger.

Take home points:

• There are exceptions to the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury lawsuits in Oregon.
• One of the exceptions applies to owners of the motor vehicle when the insurance company pays for property damage but does not disclose when is the deadline for filing the lawsuit.

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.

When defending Oregon lawsuits for whiplash following car accidents, insurance companies often hire "experts" to pooh-pooh the claims. Their reports all look the same: "no objective evidence" to support claims. That's like saying you can't see pain, which is true, but misses the point.

But do the insurance companies ever pay to look for objective evidence of the symptoms of chronic whiplash? Studies show that car accident whiplash patients suffer the following at a much higher rate than the general population: headache, migraines, tiredness, neck pain, upper back pain, sleep problems, thinking problems, low back pain, and many other issues. Insurance companies do not pay for tests to validate claims. Insurance companies pay for "doctors" to dismiss the claims and bad-mouth people who hurt, calling them liars, cheats, and / or crazy.

Scientists have found physical changes more prevalent among those suffering chronic whiplash-associated disorder than with the general population. I will discuss two of them.

The European Journal Of Pain reported a study of regional cerebral blood flow. Researchers C. Linnman and others used some super high-tech equipment to compare people, and, sure enough, they found changes in cerebral blood flow that matched up with their neck disabilities. So to those insurance company "doctors" I ask, "How do you fake cerebral blood flow?"

Other researchers have used Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to study obscure details in certain flexor muscles in the neck. The journal Spine reports the study by Elliott and other researchers of "fatty infiltrate" in muscles and the cross-sectional area (CSA) of key muscles. Sure enough, the study showed more fatty infiltrate and larger muscle CSA in car accident patients than in the general population.

Elliott's most recent study of flexor muscles is consistent with his earlier study of women suffering from whiplash, which showed higher fatty infiltration their neck extensor muscles.

These objective measures can only be used for comparison purposes. It would not make sense to use them in an individual case. What the studies show is that, despite all of the slurs that whiplash victims must endure from insurance company doctors, the bodies of car accident victims suffer physical changes that you cannot see with the naked eye.

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

The Oregonian reported the settlement of a lawsuit against Gresham's Golden Star Restaurant & Lounge of at least $1.35 million dollars because it over-served alcohol to the drunk driver who killed two young girls. According to a witness, the bar served the drunken driver four to six drinks. The woman was not standing straight (swaying) and even flashed her bra to the entire bar.

The drunken woman drove on the wrong side of the road when she smashed into the two 21 year olds returning home from a birthday party. The grief-stricken parents (the Shaddixs and the Blancks) sued and had the courage to reject any settlement that included a confidentiality provision.

Despite the fact that everyone knows better, people still drive drunk, people still let others drive drunk, and people serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated people who they know will likely drive while intoxicated. The lesson from this case, and the Linda Cunningham case, is that people who make a living serving alcohol (and social hosts, too) are responsible for the damage they cause when they get people drunk.

For information on your legal rights when injured by a drunk driver, see this summary of Oregon Law.

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.

Oregon families are suffering financially from unemployment and underemployment, making it difficult to pay that motor vehicle insurance policy premium. Today, I received a call from someone who was injured in a car accident, and the police ticketed her for driving uninsured. This post covers the legal consequences of driving while uninsured in Oregon.

First, Oregon law prohibits (1) driving without insurance and (2) not providing proof of insurance to Oregon's Department of Transportation. A violation of either is a Class B traffic violation. Currently, that will cost you up to $360. (Who knows when that might change.)

Second, if you are involved in a motor vehicle accident, then an Oregon court could suspend your driver's license.

Third, if you are injured in the car accident, then you can lose your right to recover money for noneconomic damages, which include compensation for pain, inability to engage in activities, emotional suffering, etc. In other words, if you get hurt so bad that you must limp for the rest of your life, you get no money damages for the limping. There are exceptions to this "Bar of Nonecomomic Damages," including if the insurance recently lapsed (within 180 days) or if the guy who caused the accident was reckless.

Fourth, an Oregonian convicted of driving without insurance must file a special document with the Oregon Department of Transportation to show proof of future insurance for three years.

Fifth, you need to carry your insurance card if you are insured and show it to the police if asked. Failure to carry proof of insurance is also a Class B traffic violation. Fortunately, if you get proof of insurance to the court clerk before the date listed on the citation, the court will dismiss the charge.

Exemptions from mandatory insurance include snowmobiles, farm tractors, antique cars with the proper registration, and motor-assisted scooters or other personal mobility devices. Also, no insurance is required if you are driving on private property not open to the public.

However, even if you don't need insurance for some of these vehicles, especially snowmobiles, you should get it for the reasons set forth in my other post. Do you really want to put at risk your home and life's savings if something unexpected happens while snowmobiling?

Get insurance, whether or not the law requires it or you think you can afford it.

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.

The Oregon Supreme Court reversed a defense verdict in a truck-car accident case because the trial court did not allow the plaintiff's attorney an opportunity to respond to the closing defense argument. For closing arguments the practice is that the attorney for the injured party (the plaintiff) talks to the jury first. Then, the defendant makes its argument. Finally, the attorney for the injured party responds to what the defendant said.

In the case of Stella Charles v. Palomo, after the defense lawyer uttered his closing argument, the trial judge began to instruct the jury. The lawyer for Stella Charles, interrupted, "Rebuttal, Your Honor?" The trial judge refused his request for rebuttal argument.

Oregon's Supreme Court interpreted ORCP 58 B(6), which sets forth the normal practice that the injured person shall "commence and conclude" the closing arguments. The trial court tripped up on the second sentence of the rule, which covers the very unusual situation of a plaintiff skipping the opportunity to make the first closing argument.

To win an appeal, a party must prove that the trial court's mistake could have affected the outcome.

At trial, the defense lawyer highlighted defendant's testimony claiming that the real problem was that Ms. Charles's vehicle stalled. Defendant said he got that information from the police officer. Defendant testified that Ms. Charles admitted to the cop that her car stalled. This "fact" of the car stalling was in the last argument the jury heard before it decided against Stella Charles.

The Oregon Supreme Court held that it might have made a difference if the Ms. Charles's attorney had the last word to point out: (1) The police officer did not mention stalling in the police report; (2) Defendant did not call the police officer to testify; (3) There was no evidence of stalling other than defendant's claim; (4) Defendant's stalling claim was new: in his sworn testimony months before trial, defendant never mentioned this "fact," and (5) Defendant had a strong incentive to make it all up.

Thanks to Court's decision, Ms. Charles gets another opportunity to seek justice in the trial court.

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.

You've been involved in a car or truck accident in Oregon. The insurance company decides to call it a total loss, and then comes up with a low-ball appraised value. For example, the insurance company offers to pay you $12,000, but you think the car is worth at least $15,000. What can you do?

For too long, Oregonians have suffered from abusive insurance company practices, including declaring a motor vehicle a total loss and then offering less than the full value. If Oregonians disputed the appraised value but needed the money and cashed the check, then we lost our right to challenge the appraisal. Fortunately, an Oregon law addresses the problem of a totaled car or truck.

For motor vehicle insurance policies issued or renewed after January 1, 2010, Oregon law requires the insurer to pay money now and allows the owner to dispute the amount. Here's how it works.

• When the insurance company totals the car or truck and offers to pay, it must give you (1) the appraisal reports it used and (2) information on their duties and what you can do.

• The insurance company must pay what they think the car is worth. It can no longer hold your check hostage until you sign a legal release. Of course, you must sign over the motor vehicle title if you accept the check.

• The insurance company must tell you where they take the car, and keep it available for you for 14 days, so you may inspect it, photograph it, or hire an appraiser to work for you.

• If you challenge the appraised value and win, then the insurance company must pay you the difference, PLUS pay your appraisal fees.

So, finally, Oregonians no longer have to choose between (1) getting SOME money they need for their next car and taking a loss or (2) challenging the appraisal. Now, we can do both.

You can read more details in the Oregon Administrative Rule
836-080-0240.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
503-665-4234

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

Summary

Oregon law requires drivers and others to report car or truck accidents that occur on public roads and other places open to the public (like shopping mall parking lots). The obligation to report depends on what happened and who is able to report. Here's how it works.

What car accidents require a report to Oregon Department of Transportation?

The driver must report if involved in the following categories of car or truck accidents:

• Accidents in which someone was injured,
• Accidents in which someone was killed,
• Accidents in which your own car had over $1,500 in damage,
• Accidents in which the other guy's car had to be towed and had over $1,500 in damage, or
• Accidents in which there was non-vehicle property damage of more than $1,500 (like running into a house or knocking down a telephone pole).

The $1,500 might be increased over time, but. as of February 2010, it is still $1,500.

The reporting law does not apply to snowmobile accidents or law enforcement officials that crash while trying to nab a criminal.

Time to report.

The driver must report within 72 hours on Oregon DMV form no. 32.

Duties of owners and non-driver occupants to report.

If the driver is physically unable to make a required report, then the occupant must.

If the driver is not the owner of the car and does not report the car accident, then Oregon law requires the owner to report.

What if both drivers agree to settle it quietly. Any need to report?

We know that insurance companies jack up rates when there is an accident. Consequently, people will offer to pay for the damage and agree not to report to insurance companies or the state. If you do that, you are violating the law. Failure to report is a Class B traffic violation.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
503-665-4234

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

On January 1, 2010, Oregon's new motorcycle laws became effective. Injuries from motorcycle accidents get the legislature's attention. In Oregon motorcycle crashes that we know about grew from 443 in 2002 to 873 in 2008. I know there are many people who did not like Oregon's existing law that requires riders to wear helmets. But the data show that helmet laws really do reduce the number of deaths and the severity of injuries. Here's a summary of the new laws.

ODOT Training Required.

New Oregon motorcycle riders must pass a rider education course approved by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Who must get the training and when depends upon the age of the new rider. Even before this year, new riders under age 21 needed the course before they could get a motorcycle endorsement on their driver's license. As of January 1, 2011, new riders under age 31 must take the class, too. As of January 1, 2012, it covers 41 and younger. The law phases in the rest of the age groups over the following three years.

Reduced Insurance for Trained Riders.

Insurance companies must provide discounts on motorcycle insurance to new riders who complete a rider education course approved by the Oregon Department of Transportation. How much? Believe it or not, the law does not specify the amount of the discount.

Double the Fine for Riding Without a Motorcycle Endorsement.

Feeling like an outlaw because you do not have a motorcycle endorsement on your Oregon driver's license? Now, it will cost you $720 if you get caught. The good news is that if you complete the rider training and get the endorsement within 120 days of sentencing, then you don't have to pay the fine.

The goal, obviously, is to encourage safety and reduce injuries from motorcycle accidents, not punish riders.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
503-665-4234

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

Oregon law provides a remedy for damages caused by the sticky Toyota accelerator problem. By the way, this was not the first problem with Toyota accelerators. Last November, NHTSA announced a problem with the mats allegedly trapping the accelerators.

Oregon Revised Statutes 30.900 confirms a right to sue Toyota and the local dealership for property damage, personal injury or wrongful death caused by defects. The law is broad. It covers the following:

• Problems with manufacturing, inspection, testing, design or other defect; and
• Toyota's failure to warn of the problem of the sticky accelerator.

If you purchased your Toyota in Oregon, this law applies to you.

News reports indicate that Toyota was slow to act, despite horrific crashes allegedly due to sticky accelerators. Yesterday's New York Times article, notes the how Toyota initially discounted the problem and then blamed loose mats. Some think that even the sticky accelerator might not be the only problem. Instead, some blame the electronic system.

So, it seems that Toyota and local dealers sold defective products. The next question is whether it is worth the time and money to sue Toyota in Oregon. If uncontrollable acceleration (from whatever cause) did not cause a crash, then, it is doubtful that you should spend your time and effort with a lawsuit. On the other hand, if the uncontrollable acceleration caused you to suffer significant property damage, or if it caused personal injury to you or someone else, then you should consult with a lawyer, whether it is me or someone else.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
503-665-4234

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

In Oregon, if the employer pays for workers' compensation insurance, then the worker may not sue the employer when he or she is hurt on the job. This "exclusive remedy" provision does not apply if either (a) the employer does not have workers' compensation coverage or (b) someone else -- or something else -- was at fault.

For example, we sued a printing press manufacturer for making a dangerous machine when a worker suffered a severe arm injury. The manufacturer was not the employer, so it was not immune from suit under Oregon law. A more typical example is someone hurt in a car or truck accident while on the job. The worker can sue the other driver that caused the wreck.

But there are special issues to be aware of involving who may sue and who gets the money.

If the workers' compensation insurer pays benefits, then it has a right to get paid back out of any lawsuit proceeds. In fact, the insurance company can force you to decide whether to file a lawsuit. If you do not sue, then the insurance company can sue in your name.

There's a big difference to Oregon workers depending on whether the worker sues or the insurance company files the lawsuit.

If the insurance company sues in your name, then it controls the litigation. It decides when to settle. If the insurance company sues and settles the case, then it gets paid before the worker. The formula is that the insurer gets paid in full before the worker gets even one penny.

If the injured worker sues, then the formula for distributing the money is very different. First, the costs of the lawsuit are paid, including the attorney fees. Next, the worker receives 1/3 of the balance. Only then does the insurance company get paid back. So, if the worker sues, he or she jumps ahead of the insurance company. If there is still money left after paying back the insurer, the balance goes to the worker. The key Oregon law is ORS 656.576 to 656.596.

Another consideration is this. If the insurance company sues, will it really care whether the worker receives any money? Will it settle too cheaply, making sure it gets repaid and not worry about winning monetary compensation for your disability?

So the lesson? If you are seriously injured at work because of someone other than a coworker or something like a dangerous machine, then it is in your interest to sue and not let the insurance company file a lawsuit in your name.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
503-665-4234

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