The New Battlefront

At Bailey and Galyen, we are keenly aware of how the legal landscape changes. Through the years, we have always stayed one step ahead of those changes, and we have adapted to meet the challenges as they arise to better serve our clients.

Recently, several of the major insurance companies have declared war on YOU, the injured victim. All of these companies with their cute television ads and promises to be there for you actually don t care about you at all.

The new tactic these companies use is to seriously undercut what you deserve for your accident, especially when your medical bills are less than $6,000. They hope that if they offer you thousands less than what your case is worth, you will drop your case. They also hope that your attorney will choose not to pursue further legal action in those cases. Their goal is to chase you, the victim, away and force law firms out of business.

But at Bailey and Galyen, we do not run. We fight.

Bailey and Galyen has always had a litigation department. And Bailey and Galyen’s litigation department will continue to be the finest litigation department in the state.

But to combat the new insurance company tactic, Bailey and Galyen now, in addition to its litigation department, will have a small claims department. This department will fight the litigation battles for those cases in which the medical bills are $6,000 and under. Where other firms might withdraw from those cases, B&G simply sees this as another way to fight for YOU.

And that is what Bailey and Galyen is all about.

The Bite is Worse than the Bark

One of the most terrifying events a person can endure is a dog attack.

The most common theme with these dog attacks is that the dogs are large and vicious. The majority of the dogs involved in attacks are pit bulls.

Injuries from dog bites can include torn skin, broken bones and ripped flesh. We can help you make sure all those injuries are taken care of.

Most dog attacks, however, do not simply scar the body, but also the mind. Many of our clients have had horrible nightmares and become afraid of dogs. This psychological injury can be worse than the physical injuries.

That is why at Bailey & Galyen we not only care about the injuries you can see, but we are also very concerned about the injuries you cannot see. We work with medical providers to fix all the injuries. This could include plastic surgery, scar revision and, when needed, psychiatric care.

If you or a loved one is attacked by a dog, give us a call. We will do all we can to make sure ALL your injuries are healed.


HBO Hot Coffee Documentary Premiere – June 27, 8pm

HOT COFFEE examines the dangers of so-called tort reform and its threat to our civil justice system. Using the now-infamous legal battle over a spilled cup of McDonald’s coffee as a springboard, the film follows four people whose lives have been affected by their inability to access the courts, and examines the role of corporations and a complicit media in promoting tort reform.
Is Justice Being Served?

“Seinfeld mocked it. Letterman ranked it in his top ten list”. And more than fifteen years later, its infamy continues. Everyone knows the McDonald’s coffee case. It has been routinely cited as an example of how citizens have taken advantage of America’s legal system, but is that a fair rendition of the facts? Hot Coffee reveals what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the Albuquerque woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald s, while exploring how and why the case garnered so much media attention, who funded the effort and to what end. After seeing this film, you will decide who really profited from spilling hot coffee.


Drug Companies Say The Doctor Knew and Did Not Tell You

Product liability cases are filed against drug companies to recover compensation for serious injuries and damages from dangerous prescription drugs. These lawsuits are based on the inadequacy of the written warnings (also referred to as the label or package insert) that come with the drug to warn the patient and prescribing physician of its risks and serious side effects. The lawsuits are premised on the principle that the drug companies have the duty not to injure the patient. Drug companies fulfill that duty when their drug’s warnings disclose all of the drug’s risks and serious side effects. Only then can the patient exercise their absolute right to know all of the risks and serious side effects of a drug before they take a drug. When the drug companies fail to fulfill that duty and serious injuries and harm result, the drug company must be held responsible and accountable.

Notice that I said the drug company must be held responsible and accountable. That litigation may or may not involve the doctor who prescribed the dangerous drug. At Bailey & Galyen, litigation against the drug companies rarely if ever involves the prescribing doctor. Prescribing doctors are not sued because they only know what the drug companies tell them. Fact is that the prescribing doctors know little more about a drugs risks and serious side effects than that, and the information they do have is solely from the drug company’s written warnings. So, if the warnings are inadequate, in all likelihood so is the doctor’s knowledge of the drugs risks and serious side effects. That effectively makes both the doctors as well as their patients the victims when their patients experience serious side effects that the drug company did not adequately warn about. To add insult to injury, when a lawsuit is filed the drug companies deny any responsibility of wrongdoing and blame both the injured patient and the prescribing doctor for the patients’ injuries and damages. Here is an example of that language which drug companies regularly include in their defensive pleadings:

When the drug company takes the prescribing doctor’s deposition with hopes to prove that the doctor would not have done anything differently no matter what was in it’s warnings and not matter what the prescribing doctor knew, it is important to be clearly point out and emphasized to the prescribing doctor that his patient did not sue or make any allegations against him in the case against the drug company. The prescribing doctor must be shown in the drug company’s pleadings filed in the lawsuit the allegations against the prescribing doctor, stating that the prescribing doctor is responsible and at fault for his patient’s injuries and damages.

The drug companies further contend:
1. even if armed with this knowledge, it wouldn’t matter because the prescribing doctor already knew everything that a supposedly adequate warning would have contained;
2. that the prescribing doctor didn t read the warnings and therefore a different warning wouldn’t have changed the doctor’s decision to prescribe that drug for the patient; and
3. that even if at the time the prescribing doctor prescribed this dangerous drug to the patient he knew everything then that he has since learned about this drug, he still would have treated the plaintiff the very same way (by prescribing the drug).

To justify this position, the drug companies use the statistics of how many patients might experience a drug’s serious side effects. Drug companies take the callous position that all drugs have side effects, and it is acceptable if 1 in 10,000 patients experience a serious side effect from their drug because 9,999 people didn t.

Putting the blame on another in a lawsuit is called alleging an affirmative defense. The affirmative defense states that if the drug company did something wrong (which it denies it did), someone else actually caused the patient’s injuries and damages. The drug company’s affirmative defense alleges that its warnings were accurate and complete and the prescribing doctor caused the patient’s injuries because the drug company passed on to the prescribing doctor all of the information that it had about the drug’s risks and serious side effects, and it was the prescribing doctor’s responsibility to then pass that information on to the patient. That works fine if the drug company did make accurate and complete disclosure of all the drug’s risks and serious side effects in its warnings. In that event, the prescribing doctor would have been fully aware of the same and could have passed those warnings on to the patient. Most often however, that is not the case: The prescribing doctor knows only what they read in the drug company’s warnings.

The fact of the matter is that a prescribing doctor’s learning about a drug’s risks and serious side effects does change his prescribing practices accordingly: It does affect which patients he prescribes the drug for, what doses he prescribes, what directions he gives for taking the drug, and the risk/benefit discussion the prescribing doctor has with the patient before prescribing the drug. It does change the patient’s decision whether or not to take the drug when the patient is aware of and weighs all known risks against the touted benefits of the drug.

The problem is multifold:
1. The FDA approves prescription drugs solely on the information it is provided by the drug company. The FDA does no testing; it is understaffed and underfunded. The FDA relies on the drug companies to test drugs for safety or effectiveness. If the drug company does not adequately test for safety or effectiveness and does not disclose all study results to the FDA, and the FDA approves the drug, it has done so on inaccurate and incomplete information.
2. The drug company warnings only include that which the FDA makes it include based on what the drug company tells it about the drug’s safety and effectiveness. If the drug company does not disclose all known risks and side effects to the FDA, the warnings will be inaccurate and incomplete
3. The drug company’s incentive is not to make accurate and complete disclosure of all known risks and serious side effects to the FDA and in its drug’s label. The reason: Doctors will be hesitant to prescribe it and patients will be hesitant to take it, and that reduction in prescriptions being written equates to a drop in the drug company’s revenue.

The solution is having the ability to hold the drug companies responsible and make them accountable for their failing to fulfill their duty to the patient to protect them from known risks and serious injuries.