bdtt7795-paq52znd95g0tia9

Maximizing Your Personal Injury Compensation: Tips from a La Porte, IN Lawyer

Mon, 28 Oct 2024 20:01:00 GMT

If you’ve recently been injured in an accident, you may be wondering how to maximize your personal injury compensation. While every case is unique, there are certain steps you can take to increase your chances of receiving what you deserve. As a personal injury lawyer in La Porte, IN, we’ve helped many clients navigate the legal process and obtain the compensation they need to recover from their injuries. In this article, we’ll share some tips on how to maximize your compensation.

1. Seek Medical Treatment Immediately

The first and most important step you should take after an accident is to seek medical treatment. Even if you don’t feel like you’ve been seriously injured, it’s important to get a professional medical evaluation. Some injuries, such as whiplash or concussions, may not show symptoms until days or even weeks after the accident. By seeking medical treatment immediately, you can ensure that your injuries are properly documented and treated.

2. Document Everything

After an accident, it’s important to document everything related to the accident and your injuries. This includes taking photos of the accident scene, obtaining contact information from any witnesses, and keeping track of all medical bills and expenses. This documentation will be crucial when it comes to proving the extent of your injuries and calculating your compensation.

3. Don’t Accept a Quick Settlement

Insurance companies may try to offer you a quick settlement after an accident. While this may seem like an easy way to get compensation, it’s often not in your best interest. Insurance companies are in the business of making money, and they may try to offer you a settlement that’s lower than what you’re entitled to. Before accepting any settlement offer, it’s important to consult with a personal injury lawyer.

4. Hire a Personal Injury Compensation Lawyer

Speaking of personal injury compensation lawyers, hiring one can greatly increase your chances of maximizing your compensation. A personal injury lawyer can help you navigate the legal process, negotiate with insurance companies, and ensure that your rights are protected. They can also help you calculate your damages and ensure that you’re not being offered a settlement that’s lower than what you deserve.

If you’ve been injured in an accident near La Porte, IN, don’t hesitate to contact Braje, Nelson & Janes LLP. Our team of experienced personal injury lawyers can help you obtain the compensation you need to recover from your injuries. Visit our website or call us at 219-872-2100 to schedule your consultation.

Do Lakefront Homeowners Also Own The Beach?

Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:20:00 GMT

Attorney Kurt Earnst currently serves as local counsel for the Long Beach Community Alliance (LBCA). In 2015, the LBCA successfully argued that the shores of Lake Michigan are owned by the public and not individual homeowners. Now, an appeal of the Court’s ruling has been initiated, with Oral Arguments ordered for the Indiana Court of Appeals for September 8, 2016. More information on this matter can be found under the following cause numbers: 46D02-1404-PL-000606 and 46A03-1508-PL-01116.

Polygraphs Raise Eyebrows

Thu, 19 May 2016 21:26:00 GMT

The Michigan City News-Dispatch

By JESSICA O’BRIEN – Staff Writer

MICHIGAN CITY — An ordinance introduced to the Michigan City Common Council spurred a back-and-fourth debate between Fire Chief Randy Novak and local attorney Christopher Willoughby during Tuesday’s council meeting.

The ordinance, introduced by Councilman Tim Bietry, requests an additional appropriation of $78,506 for fire pension benefits and testing costs for prospective candidates to the fire department.

Willoughby, who was retained by some recent candidates for the department, issued a letter to the Common Council outlining what he believes to be a problem with this ordinance.

In this letter, he describes recent changes to the department’s hiring procedures – specifically the institution of a polygraph test to accompany the state-mandated physical and mental examinations…

Indiana Supreme Court Issues Opinion on State V. Brian Taylor

Sat, 02 Apr 2016 21:33:00 GMT

On March 30, 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court issued its Opinion in the case of State v. Brian Taylor. David Payne and Craig Braje traveled to Indianapolis for oral arguments on this case in October of 2015.

In its Opinion, the Supreme Court overturned, in part, Judge Kathleen Lang’s Order which suppressed any and all testimony of the police officers who eavesdropped on a conversation between Brian Taylor and Mr. Payne, his attorney. In a strongly-worded opinion, the Supreme Court condemned the eavesdropping of Mr. Taylor’s confidential conversation with his attorney. However, the Supreme Court reasoned that Judge Lang’s broad Order resulted in a windfall to Mr. Taylor rather than providing him with the proper remedy for the violation of his constitutional rights.

Now, this case will return to the LaPorte Superior Court #1, where Judge Michael Bergerson will hold a hearing to determine what portion of the police officers’ testimony was influenced by their eavesdropping and therefore, inadmissible in trial.

The link to the Indiana Supreme Court Opinion is: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03301601lhr.pdf .

The cause number for the LaPorte Superior Court # 1 is 46D01-1403-MR-110.

Oral Arguments Presented At Indiana Supreme Court on State V. Brian Taylor

Sat, 06 Feb 2016 21:42:00 GMT

On October 28, 2015, Craig V. Braje and David K. Payne appeared before the Indiana Supreme Court in Indianapolis to present oral arguments in the case of State of Indiana vs. Brian Taylor. Mr. Taylor has been charged with the murder of Simone Bush. At issue before the Supreme Court, was whether the LaPorte Superior Court No. 1 correctly excluded evidence and testimony linked to certain police officers who, along with the then-Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of LaPorte County, had listened in on part of a confidential conversation between Mr. Taylor and his attorney. Before reaching the Indiana Supreme Court, the case was argued through written brief to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which held that the Superior Court’s ruling reached too far in excluding nearly all evidence and testimony collected, discovered, or provided by those law enforcement personnel who had overheard Mr. Taylor’s conversation with his attorney.

Advocating for Mr. Taylor, Mr. Braje and Mr. Payne argued that the trial court’s ruling should remain in place and the evidence in question should be deemed inadmissible given that the members of law enforcement at issue refused to provide testimony on their methods of collection and discovery and, instead, asserted their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court has now taken the matter under advisement and will be issuing their ruling within the next few months.

For more information, the Indiana Supreme Court case number assigned to this matter is 46S04-1509-CR-552 and the Indiana Court of Appeals cause number is 46A04-1407-CR-316. You can also watch online the oral arguments presented to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Attorneys Braje & Payne Appear Before Indiana Supreme Court

Thu, 13 Aug 2015 21:52:00 GMT

On October 28, 2015, Craig V. Braje and David K. Payne appeared before the Indiana Supreme Court to present oral arguments in the case of State of Indiana vs. Brian Taylor. At issue before the Court, was the trial court’s ruling to exclude certain evidence relating to the investigative officers involved with Mr. Taylor’s case who along with the Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney had surreptitiously heard part of a confidential conversation between Mr. Taylor and his attorney.

Arguing for the Defendant, Mr. Braje and Mr. Payne submitted that the lower court’s ruling should remain in place and the evidence in question should be deemed inadmissible given that the members of law enforcement involved refused to provide testimony by way of deposition and asserted their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court has now taken the matter under advisement and will be issuing their ruling within the next few months. The case number for this matter is 46S04-1509-CR-552.