The Role of Demand Letters in Car Accident Settlements: What Victims Need to Know
When you’re involved in a car accident, the aftermath can be overwhelming. Beyond physical injuries, there’s the financial strain of medical bills, vehicle repairs, and lost income. In such situations, a car accident demand letter plays a pivotal role in securing fair compensation. Whether you’re handling the claim independently or with the assistance of a […]
Nevada Senate Proposes Limits on Workers’ Compensation Liens
In fall 2024, Nevada’s Supreme Court overruled 38 years of precedent concerning how workers’ compensation liens are resolved in personal injury claims. Nevada’s Senate has now passed a bill to limit the amounts workers’ compensation carriers can recover and provides a system to decide the lien amount. The bill now goes to the Assembly for consideration.
BackgroundAs discussed in a prior article, from 1986 through fall 2024 the Breen formula that the Supreme Court created governed how injured workers and their workers’ compensation carriers determine how much of a workers’ compensation lien needed to be repaid after a personal injury recovery. AmTrust North America, Inc. v. Vasquez overruled Breen because the formula conflicted with NRS 616C.215 and did not work. “Here, the Breen formula failed to provide a net positive recovery for AmTrust, demonstrating that it is mathematically flawed and unworkable.”
When applied in this case, it produced a “net negative recovery for AmTrust” while producing “a double recovery” for the worker. Instead, injured workers were instructed to follow NRS 616C.215(5), stating that the workers’ compensation carrier “has a lien upon the total proceeds of any recovery from some person other than the employer, whether the proceeds of such recovery are by way of judgment, settlement, or otherwise.” It also specifies that injured employees “are not entitled to double recovery for the same injury.”
Senate Bill 258 as AmendedOn April 22, 2025, SB 258 as amended passed the Senate 21-0. As passed, SB 258’s primary change is to insert a new section to be labeled NRS 616C.215(7).
NRS 616C.215(7)(a) would limit the workers’ compensation carrier’s lien to the lesser of:
The full amount of the lien or
One third of the total amount recovered from the person other than the employer or person in the same employ. As used in this subparagraph, “total amount recovered” means the total proceeds described in subsection 5 including, without limitation, any attorneys’ fees or costs.
The expansive language in the proposed NRS 616C.215(7)(a)(2) does not limit the lien to just the verdict amount. If the injured worker recovers taxable costs, pre-judgment interest, or attorneys’ fees, those amounts increase the total subject to the lien.
But if NRS 616C.215(7)(a)(2)’s one-third limitation is triggered, NRS 616C.215(7)(b) would then reduce that one third by 50 percent “of the reasonable expenses incurred by the injured employee… in prosecuting or settling the claim….” NRS 616C.215(7)(b) then creates a procedure for determining those expenses. The expenses must be verified by a CPA, whose verified accounting must be provided to the insurer. The insurer can dispute the verified accounting by filing a petition for judicial review.
Potential ImpactAt present, insurers have a lien against the total amount of damages recovered. There is no requirement that they reduce the lien at all. It is possible there are fact patterns where the revised NRS 616C.215(7)(a)(2) might still “result in the divestment of the insurer’s statutory lien in favor of providing an insured with double recovery,” which is what the Supreme Court rejected in Vasquez. Insurers monitoring this legislation may wish to consider how NRS 616C.215(7)(a)(2) could affect their ability to recover.
Top Mistakes to Avoid After Suffering a Personal Injury
Suffering a personal injury can turn your life upside down in an instant. Between medical appointments, missed work, and emotional stress, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and even easier to make a misstep without realizing it. Whether you were injured in a car accident, at work, or somewhere else, avoiding these common mistakes can protect both your health and your ability to recover financially.
1. Not Getting Medical Attention Right Away
Even if your injuries seem minor, seeing a doctor as soon as possible is important. Some injuries, such as whiplash or concussions, can take time to show symptoms. Delaying medical treatment can worsen your condition and give the insurance company a reason to argue that your injuries were not serious.
2. Talking Too Much to the Insurance Company
Insurance adjusters might sound friendly on the phone, but their job is to save their company money. Giving a recorded statement or signing paperwork too soon can harm your case. It is your right to tell them you would like to speak with your lawyer first.
3. Not Following Doctor’s Orders
If your doctor tells you to rest, go to physical therapy, or avoid certain activities, you should follow their orders. Ignoring medical advice not only risks your health, but it can also make it look like you’re not as injured as you say you are.
4. Waiting Too Long to Take Action
Every state has time limits for filing personal injury claims, called statutes of limitations. If you wait too long, you could lose your right to compensation forever. Not acting soon enough also makes it more difficult to gather evidence and talk to witnesses. The sooner you act, the better.
5. Trying to Handle It All on Your Own
Navigating a personal injury claim without a lawyer can be overwhelming, especially with strict deadlines, complex paperwork, and tough negotiations involved. Insurance companies often have teams working to minimize payouts, which can make the process even more challenging. Having a knowledgeable personal injury lawyer can help ensure your rights are protected and that you understand your options every step of the way.
Conclusion
Recovering from a personal injury is a process—physically, emotionally, and financially. By avoiding these common mistakes, you give yourself the best chance to heal and move forward. Focus on your recovery, keep records of everything, and don’t hesitate to seek help.
Uncle RICO Gets the High Court Treatment: Cannabis Companies and Those Who Provide Services to Them May Be Subject to RICO Claims for Labeling, Advertising
Recently, a divided United States Supreme Court held that a cannabis product manufacturer could face civil liability under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) if a consumer suffered a personal injury that created a business or property loss to the consumer. Specifically, the Court concluded that an employee could state a claim under RICO for losing his job after testing positive for THC when the product he took was advertised as being THC-free.
Unfortunately, this post won’t be replete with Napoleon Dynamite references (although now we want to watch that beautifully stupid piece of cinema and write such a post). Instead, at the risk of sounding like grumpy lawyers and alarmists, this case could dramatically alter the landscape of cannabis marketing and substantially change the industry as a whole.
Our preferred style at Budding Trends is to write for the cannabis industry and not for naval-gazing lawyers, but in this instance it is important for cannabis operators to understand what the Supreme Court said, and what it didn’t say, about RICO liability for cannabis companies.
So, What’s This All About?
In the case, Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, the Court addressed the sole and broad question of “whether civil RICO categorically bars recovery for business or property losses that derive from a personal injury.”
The facts are relatively straightforward:
Douglas Horn, a commercial truck driver who injured his back and shoulder in an automobile accident, treated his injuries, in part, with a product called “Dixie X.” That product is a tincture infused with CBD that is advertised as “CBD-rich” and containing “0% THC.” A few weeks after ingesting “Dixie X,” Horn’s employer selected Horn for a random drug screening. The test detected “THC” in his system, and Horn’s employment was subsequently terminated. Horn alleged to have ingested no other products that could have contained THC and sent a sample of “Dixie X” for third-party lab testing, the results of which confirmed some presence of THC.
Horn sued the manufacturer of “Dixie X,” Medical Marijuana, Inc., in a United States District Court in New York alleging, among other claims, a civil RICO claim. The complaint contends Medical Marijuana is a RICO “enterprise” that distributes and sells “Dixie X,” and that Medical Marijuana’s false and misleading advertising constituted mail and wire fraud and that those crimes represented a “pattern of racketeering activity.” The district court dismissed Horn’s RICO claim on summary judgment because RICO only affords relief to plaintiffs who suffer business or property injuries. Horn’s injury, according to the lower court, was merely a personal one. As any business or property injuries Horn allegedly suffered stemmed from a personal injury, the district court further reasoned that RICO offered Horn no redress.
Horn appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which disagreed with the district court’s conclusion and reversed that decision and remanded the matter back to the district court for continued litigation. In doing so, the Second Circuit characterized Horn’s personal injury as one regarding his personal employment and, therefore, a business injury under the RICO statute. As such, the court rejected the notion that RICO imposes an “antecedent-personal-injury bar” to recovery. That holding added to the existing circuit split on the issue, and the High Court decided to review Medical Marijuana’s appeal.
The Supreme Court, at the outset of its opinion affirming the Second Circuit, made clear that the sole question it was deciding was: “whether civil RICO bars recovery for all business and property harms that derive from a personal injury.” Answering in the negative, the Court sent Horn’s RICO claim back to the trial court, allowing Horn’s RICO claim to fight another day – treble damages and all (more on this below).
The Court’s opinion was not unanimous, however, and was not split on perceived political lines. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Jackson also filed a concurring opinion, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh filed dissents, the latter of which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts.
What Is RICO?
RICO was passed in the 1970s and imposes both criminal and civil penalties for a “pattern of racketeering activity.” Racketeering activity is broadly defined and includes not only the sale of illegal drugs but also wire and mail fraud, both of which can be implicated when a product is intentionally mislabeled and sent to a customer.
Originally aimed to aid in mafia prosecutions, the law now operates to punish those that commit crimes that constitute a pattern. While significant criminal penalties can befall a RICO defendant, the civil penalties are nothing to sneeze at. In addition to attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, a successful RICO plaintiff can recover treble damages. That is, a successful RICO plaintiff can recover as much as three times the actual damages incurred. That’s a heavy sword.
What Does This Mean for Cannabis Operators and Service Providers?
The bad news is that RICO claims carry the possibility of criminal penalties (yeah, that means prison time) or significant money damages (again, up to three-times actual damages plus attorneys’ fees and costs). And the Horn opinion, at least on its face, provides plaintiffs’ attorneys a blueprint of sorts to assert more civil RICO claims.
But the good news is that cannabis companies can mitigate against the risk of RICO liability by ensuring that their practices remain fully compliant with state laws in which they operate.
I’ve seen arguments about whether this is a hemp case or marijuana case. After all, in 2012 the term “hemp” was not included in the Controlled Substances Act; rather, most of the cannabis sativa plant was included within the definition of “marijuana.”
I’m willing to be turned around on this but I’m not yet sold that the effort to distinguish marijuana and hemp under these facts is a worthwhile exercise under current law. Because the underlying claim relates to the labeling of the product, I believe wire and/or mail fraud claims would apply with equal force to either marijuana or hemp companies engaged in the shipment of mislabeled products. And there may be more instances of overlap not addressed by the Court.
The takeaway for cannabis operators: While you can’t eliminate the chances of being sued for anything, don’t mislabel your products and then you’re less likely to face the kind of claim filed by Horn.
Conclusion
There are few acronyms that strike fear in a defense lawyer like RICO. Regardless of how you feel about the wisdom of the policy, RICO is an extraordinarily wide-reaching law and its application to the hemp industry poses a threat that has probably seemed more theoretical than pressing in the minds of hemp operators. Not anymore.
Notably, the Court recognized Congress was the proper place to decide the scope of RICO. Hemp operators should consider whether a tweak to the RICO law could exempt their products from its scope. In the meantime, be careful out there. Stay vigilant.
Thanks for stopping by.
Listen to this article
Maryland Man Sues Novo Nordisk, Claims Ozempic Caused His Blindness
Maryland Man Sues Novo Nordisk, Claims Ozempic Caused His Blindness. A Maryland man who lost his vision after taking Ozempic is suing drugmaker Novo Nordisk, alleging the popular diabetes medication caused his irreversible condition. Todd Engel, 62, has filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court, claiming that Ozempic caused him to develop non-arteritic anterior […]
One Dead, Several Injured After Boat Slams Into Clearwater Ferry in Florida
One Dead, Several Injured After Boat Slams Into Clearwater Ferry in Florida. A Day on the Water Turns Tragic in Clearwater What was supposed to be a peaceful ferry ride turned into chaos Sunday night when a boat plowed into a ferry packed with more than 40 passengers near Clearwater’s Memorial Causeway Bridge. In the […]
What steps should you take after involving in an Uber accident?
It’s no secret that the ride-sharing industry is booming. Other automobile rental companies offer ride-sharing services in addition to Uber, which is astounding. What are your options if you’ve been involved in an accident while traveling in an Uber? A few simple actions might assist you in resolving any issues that arise as a result […]
5 Essential Steps After Suffering a Wrongful Death of a Loved One
Losing a loved one unexpectedly is devastating. The emotional toll can be overwhelming, making it difficult to think clearly about what to do next. However, there are essential steps to consider in the wake of the passing of a loved one – especially in the case of a wrongful death. Each action you take in […]
Why Wyoming’s Wide-Open Roads Make It Easy to Speed—and Hard to Stop
Wyoming’s roads are a study in contrasts: breathtakingly beautiful, sparsely traveled, and seemingly endless. The state’s wide-open spaces, with their long, straight highways and minimal traffic, create a unique driving environment that can feel both liberating and deceptive. For many drivers, the vastness of routes like Interstate 80 or U.S. Route 26 makes it easy […]
Complete Guide to Filing a Bodily Injury Claim in Texas
Getting hurt because of someone else’s negligence can be overwhelming, but understanding how to file a bodily injury claim is essential to securing the compensation you deserve. This comprehensive guide outlines each step in the claims process, from obtaining medical treatment to negotiating a fair settlement. What is a Bodily Injury Claim? A bodily injury […]
What to Do After a Fire: How Fire Lawyers Protect Your Rights
Fire is a leading cause of personal injuries and property damage. According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), fire departments responded to approximately 1.39 million fires in the United States in 2023. But it’s not the sheer number of fires reported annually that’s jaw-dropping. Instead, it’s the devastating medical and economic impact caused by […]
5 Real-Life Scenarios That Call for Legal Guidance
Much of life involves situations that may require legal expertise to assist one in knowing and ensuring that their rights have been protected for the future. For example, many will require help when launching their new business venture or when going through personal crisis or issues with ailments. The following are five critical circumstances in […]