As our Fort Lauderdale truck accident lawyers can explain, underride collision truck accidents occur when a passenger vehicle collides with a semi truck and is forced underneath the trailer. Whereas an average passenger vehicle is about 40 inches high, the lowest point of the average trailer is about 45 inches off the ground, meaning the smaller vehicle can get trapped underneath. During these crashes, the trailer or truck might “intrude” into the passenger compartment, which almost always leads to either severe injuries or death.

Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized a rule updating two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards intended to bolster protections for drivers and passengers in rear underride crashes where the front end of the smaller vehicle crashes into the back of a larger vehicle (such as a semi truck) and slides under that vehicle.

Noting that truck underride crashes are often fatal, the new rule requires rear impact guards on trailers and semis with sufficient strength and energy absorption to protect occupants of passenger vehicles in multiple crash scenarios, keeping drivers safe and preventing deadly crashes. The final rule amends FMVSS No. 223 and FMVS No. 224 pertaining to rear impact guards and rear impact protection.

In addition to setting these new standards, the rule also requires more research on these crashes and establishes an advisory committee on underride protections. Rear impact guard designs are going to be more closely studied, with state tracking of underride crashes more systematic.more

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, there have been 219 fatal underride crashes involving large trucks reported each year. Although these represent less than 1 percent of all traffic deaths, we know this figure is likely an underrepresentation because there is a great deal of variability in state and local data collection on these crashes. Further, police officers responding to crash scenes may receive limited information about how to identify and record truck underride crashes. Another study by the NHTSA estimates annual truck underride deaths number around 500 annually, with injuries topping out at around 5,000.

Many Florida truck side underride crashes involve one of the following scenarios:

• A trucker was attempting a U-turn.
• A truck driver was backing out of a parking lot or driveway into a busy road.
• A truck driver is trying to cross or turn into a street or highway.

Rear underride crashes typically often involve one of the following:

• Dim, dirty, or inoperative tail lights.
• Failure to use reflective triangles or emergency hazards when truck is broken down.
• Poorly-marked trucks slowly entering a road or slowing down.

As longtime Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers, we recognize that when it comes to personal injury claims, Florida truck accidents are trickier than most other types of traffic incidents. That’s firstly because trucks tend to cause greater harm, which means the cases are automatically higher stakes. But beyond that, trucking cases tend to be complicated by the fact that there are usually numerous defendants. The driver may not be employed by the carrier, which may be separate from the shipping company. There are layers of liability protection for each, though there should be higher insurance coverage for commercial drivers carrying larger/more dangerous loads.

If you have been injured in a Florida truck accident, our dedicated Broward injury attorneys are here to help.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Heavy-Vehicle Crash Data Collection And Analysis to Characterize Rear and Side Underride and Front Override in Fatal Truck Crashes, March 2013, NHTSA

As our Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyers can explain, this could impact how we as attorneys approach settlement negotiations.

The case that kickstarted the dispute in Gallardo v. Marstiller is a tragic one. A 13-year-old girl has been left in a persistent vegetative state after she was hit by a truck while getting off a school bus. She received a settlement of $800,000 against the owner of the truck, the driver, and the school board. (The cost of catastrophic injuries like this for someone so young can easily stretch into many millions of dollars over her lifetime.)

But then, the Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration imposed a lien on her settlement money, asserting that it was entitled to seize $300,000 of the money that was set aside for past and future medical expenses. The district court in Florida ruled against the state, arguing the federal Medicaid Act barred the state from being reimbursed for past paid medical expenses from the portion of the settlement that is set aside for future medical expenses. In the summer of 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed in favor of the state’s action.

It was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in January and is expected to rule in the coming months.

This was expected to be a fairly straightforward question of statutory interpretation on what state Medicaid programs should receive from third-party litigation – but the high court was surprisingly divided. Most justices appeared to agree that where the state had paid for injuries that the beneficiary suffered, it had a right to take from the part of the settlement/damages that is apportioned to past medical expenses. The problem arises, though, when the settlement reached for past medical expenses isn’t actually enough to repay Medicaid for what it paid. So then is the state also allowed to take part of the settlement set aside for future medical expenses?

Federal statutory guidance on this is a bit confusing. For starters, Medicaid is responsible for paying medical expenses. It does not loan money so they can be reimbursed later. So for the most part, the state isn’t allowed to recover its expenses from the person who was injured. But the game changes when a third-party was responsible for the injury and thus is liable to pay for the injured person’s expenses. In that instance, the state can seek reimbursement from that third party, per 42 USC 1396k(a)(1)(A). The way that statute is worded though, it might seem to allow for collection for past payments from a future medical expense fund. However, a bit further down, the provision seems to indicate a narrower definition.

The justices focused a lot of analysis on the statutory language. Several of their initial comments seeming to suggest that the language supports the state’s view that it can collect on all medical expense payouts, whether for past or future medical expenses, up to the amount the state has paid. However, as the discussion progressed, a number of the justices seemed to be dissatisfied with the broad implications of the state’s legal interpretation. By all accounts, Sotomayor appeared firmly against the state’s position, but how the other justices will decide is still up in the air.

Although it’s understood that the state has the right to subrogation and recovery of payments it’s already made, the broader interpretation could require personal injury lawyers representing Medicaid-covered clients to negotiate for higher reimbursement of damages dedicated to all medical expense reimbursements.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources: SCOTUS Hears Arguments on Florida Medicaid Reimbursement Dispute, Jan. 21, 2022, SCOTUS Blog More Blog Entries: What if the Driver Who Hit Me Was Not Insured?, Aug. 15, 2021, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

The Orlando Sentinel reported the sad news after a year-long fight for his life that ended recently in a hospice facility in Central Florida. He was just 40-years-old. Friends and family told reporters Liddy loved the open road, whether it was driving his tractor-trailer or bicycling across the state – a hobby he had fervently dedicated himself to in recent years.

The truck accident that caused his injuries occurred last July. According to the Florida Highway Patrol, Liddy’s truck collided with another tractor-trailer on the Turnpike in St. Lucie County one morning shortly after 5 a.m. Investigators later told WPTV NBC-5 that the two trucks were traveling southbound with the other truck a short distance ahead of Liddy. For an undetermined reason, Liddy’s semi struck the rear trailer of the other vehicle. Liddy then struck a median guardrail and jackknifed.

The violent collision resulted in tomatoes barrels of tomatoes to be scattered all across the highway. Liddy, meanwhile, was left critically injured. He suffered a serious skull fracture and had to undergo numerous injuries. For months, he was in a medically-induced coma.

Still, his family and friends held out hope that he would improve. After all, he not only had a beloved wife and three children – ages 22, 9 and 15 months – he had built strong friendships with those in the Florida cycling community. Those cyclists rallied around him and his family for the full year, cooking meals, doing yard work and organizing numerous fundraisers, including a 100-mile ride in his honor.

He transferred medical facilities a number of times, but there was hope of his improvement. He awoke. He could, with prompting, squeeze someone’s hand or raise his arms. He was even able to say a few words. He told his wife he loved her. He told her he missed her. He said her name.

But then, his condition started to decline. He suffered sky-high fevers and seizures. Then last month, he was transferred to a hospice unit. His cycling friends kept vigil by his side.

Now that he has passed, the family is no doubt reeling with what happens now.

Our Fort Lauderdale truck accident lawyers know that in terms of financial security, there may be several avenues worth exploring. Of course, health insurance may cover some of the costs and community fundraisers are welcome. But long-term, those aren’t going to make up for the wages Liddy would have earned to help support his family.

Because Liddy was on-the-job at the time of the crash, we would first want to explore whether workers’ compensation benefits might be available. These benefits generally cover medical bills and a portion of lost wages and survivor benefits when an injury or death happens at work – regardless of who is at-fault.

Beyond that, we would want to look closely at what caused this crash. Generally when one vehicle rear-ends another, there is a rebuttable presumption that the driver in the rear (in this case, Liddy), is at-fault. It would be necessary to see whether any evidence suggests he was not at-fault or that the other driver may have shared some of the blame. This would allow for a third-party civil action against the other driver and/or that driver’s employer and/or the owner of that truck.

Another element to examine is whether any mechanical issues may have played a role in the crash that might give rise to a product liability claim.

It can be difficult in the wake of such tragedy to think about finances, but it’s often critical to helping families form a steady foundation for the next chapter.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Central Florida cyclist Chris Liddy dies after yearlong battle with crash injury, June 2, 2016, By Bethany Rodgers, Orlando Sentinel

More Blog Entries:

Sorenson v. Batchelder – Injury Lawsuit Nixed Due to Misfiled Paperwork, May 29, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Truck Accident Lawyer Blog