Category: Uncategorized

A Philadelphia woman is speaking out after an alleged assault that occurred in 2016 by an Uber driver. The woman says she called an Uber car and was asked by the driver to “uncross her legs”. She refused, and the driver allegedly pulled his car over, pulled her sweatshirt over her head, and pulled the woman out of the car.

The woman says that bystanders got involved, pushing the man off her, and he fled the scene. The passenger says she suffered knee injuries in the assault, and since then she has been struggling with emotional issues and nightmares.

The driver who allegedly assaulted the passenger had prior arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct but was still hired as a driver by Uber. The woman recently filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that she the assault that she experienced was caused by Uber’s very lax driver-screening process.

The victim claims that more rigorous background checks which included fingerprints could have prevented attacks like the one that allegedly occurred. She also says that Uber’s business model allows potentially violent drivers to be alone with customers. Uber does not run driver fingerprints against a national criminal database, and sources its background checks out to third parties. Arrests that do not result in convictions will not disqualify a driver, but drivers who have major driving violations or who have been convicted of violent or sexual offenses will be banned from driving, according to the company.

Uber claims that complaints about assaults from drivers are extremely rare, but many experts dispute that claim. Many say that Uber and other ridesharing companies should do more to protect their passengers from potential harm. If you have been harmed by a driver for a ridesharing company, you should speak with an attorney. Call me, Conal Doyle, Los Angeles rideshare negligence attorney at 310-385-0567. I am currently involved in a lawsuit against Lyft and will be happy to consult with you about your case. Call today to learn more or to schedule a free consultation.

A recent investigation found that Uber and Lyft may attempt to save money on background checks for drivers, which may have contributed to the companies failing to identify some drivers with criminal backgrounds. The report found that Uber and Lyft use screening services that are less expensive than those used by the taxi industry.

A 2016 lawsuit alleged that Uber used Hirease and Checkr for its drivers’ background checks. According to the lawsuit, those background checks failed to catch drivers with criminal backgrounds because the screening process did not include access to databases with complete criminal histories or go back as far as the law allows. Uber settled the lawsuit for $25 million, and Lyft settled a similar lawsuit in 2014.

According to the investigation, part of the reason Uber and Lyft use less expensive background checks is that they pay for the service rather than the driver. In the taxi industry, the driver typically pays the bill. In most states, a Checkr background check costs between $5 and $20 and does not include fingerprinting, A Live Scan background check, which is more rigorous and is used by the New York Taxi Limousine Commission, costs $50 each and includes fingerprint checks. Fingerprinting is required for accessing the FBI’s criminal record database and provides a deeper background check.

Unfortunately, as a direct result of the failure to conduct deeper background checks, passengers of Uber and Lyft have been harmed by drivers who have had criminal records. If you have been a passenger of Uber or Lyft and you were harmed by a driver, you have legal options. Call me, Conal Doyle, Los Angeles personal injury attorney at 310-385-0567. My team can help. We are currently suing Lyft for the wrongful actions of one of its drivers. Call today to learn more.

In recent months, both Uber and Lyft changed their policies, announcing that it would allow riders, drivers, and passengers with claims of sexual assault against the companies to pursue their cases in open court. Previously, because of the agreements signed by drivers and passengers, victims were forced to mediate their claims against the companies privately.

Instead, now sexual assault victims can bypass the arbitration clause and pursue damages in court. The change in the policies of both companies does not extend to all riders with a claim against the company, but only those who have sexual assault claims. Uber’s change in policy came just days before a deadline to respond to a lawsuit filed against the company by 14 women who claim they were assaulted by their drivers. The woman asked the company to waive the arbitration clause.

Under the new policies of both companies, they have also agreed that anyone who settles their sexual misconduct case against the company is no longer required to sign a confidentiality agreement. Both companies have also agreed to work on a safety report that will include information on sexual assault complaints that the companies receive.

Critics of Uber and Lyft have blamed their issues with sexual assaults and other crimes against passengers on the systems they use to screen drivers. If you have been a victim of a crime from an Uber or Lyft driver, you should speak with an attorney. Call me, Conal Doyle, Los Angeles personal injury attorney, at 310-385-0567. I can help. Call today to learn more.

A man who formerly worked as a driver for Lyft has been charged with kidnapping and raping a woman in Illinois, which is the second attack he is accused of. The attack occurred back in 2014 against a 27-year-old woman. The woman was walking in Chicago when she noticed the man standing on the sidewalk.

The woman tried to walk away, but he blocked her path, opened his car door and demanded she get inside. He then drove her to an area near a park and stopped the car. The woman got out and tried to get away, but the man tackled her to the ground before assaulting her. She went to a police station and was examined at the hospital. DNA collected from her showed a “strong association” to the accused. At the time he was charged, he was being held for similar charges in an attack that happened last year.

The previous woman who he attacked claimed that she ordered a ride from Lyft, he picked her up, and then drove her somewhere else and attacked her. The woman was later able to escape and sued Lyft and the company that conducts background checks for Lyft.

Since rideshare companies such as Uber and Lyft have become popular, there has been a wave of rapes and assaults by drivers. The hiring process at the companies is done entirely online, and the companies may not do thorough background checks.  If you or a loved one has suffered injuries because of the wrongful actions of a rideshare driver in the Los Angeles area, you should speak with an attorney. Call me, Conal Doyle, Los Angeles personal injury attorney, at 310-385-0567. I can help. Call today to learn more or to schedule a free consultation on your case.

In addition to all the stories of assaults by drivers against Uber and Lyft passengers that have come out in the last couple of years, there is another potential violation of passengers by drivers that has made headlines recently. Uber and Lyft drivers have been caught recording and publishing videos of riders.

In recent weeks, several incidents of drivers recording passengers and then publishing those videos online have made headlines. In July, a driver in Missouri for both Uber and Lyft was found to have streamed hundreds of rides without passengers’ knowledge. In many of the videos, passengers’ names could be heard. Many were drunk and they did not consent to being recorded.

In October, a video circulated of some hockey players for the Ottawa Senators talking badly about an assistant coach. The recording was done in Arizona, and there was outrage from the team, which urged that the video be taken down.

Uber’s rules provide that drivers are permitted to record rides for security documentation but may not broadcast or publish the footage. If a driver does so, he or she may lose access to his or her account. Lyft has also announced that recording and publishing videos of riders is against the rules.

Legally, state laws for recording vary by state. Thirty-eight states are “one-party” states, which means that recording is legal if at least one of the parties knows of the surveillance. Twelve states require the consent of all parties. In addition, many states have additional rules if hidden cameras are involved.

California is a “two-party” consent state, which means that all parties must consent to be recorded. If you believe that you have been the victim of an Uber or Lyft driver illegally recording you, you should speak with an attorney. Call me, Conal Doyle, Los Angeles personal injury attorney, at 310-385-0567. My legal team can help. Call today to learn more or to schedule a free consultation on your case.

According to authorities, a Lyft driver from Lompoc sexually assaulted an unconscious female rider. The 51-year- old driver was arrested on a number of charges related to sexual misconduct.

Police say that they responded to a report of a sexual assault which had occurred at a home. The alleged victim told police that a Lyft driver drove her to her home after she requested a Lyft when she became too drunk to drive home. The driver offered to help the woman inside because of her intoxication, where she then allegedly passed out and was sexually assaulted. The man was a Lyft driver for over a year. Police are working to identify any other possible victims of the driver.

This case is one of many sexual assault cases involving ride share vehicles in the last few years across the U.S. This most recent arrest comes after a Santa Maria Uber driver was charged with four alleged sexual assaults in San Luis Obispo County.

Unfortunately, passengers of ride share vehicles may be vulnerable to serious harm during their rides. Many passengers seek out Uber or Lyft because they have been drinking, which may impair their judgment and leave them open to potential harm. In addition, Uber and Lyft have been accused of failing to take proper actions to keep their customers safe. Both companies allegedly have lax hiring standards and may contract with third parties for background checks.

If you have suffered harm at the hands of an Uber or Lyft driver, you should speak with an attorney about your legal options. If you are in the Los Angeles area, call me, Conal Doyle, Los Angeles personal injury attorney, at 310-385-0567. I can help. Call my firm today to learn more or to schedule a free consultation.

I’m sorry to hear about your child’s accident. Accidents can have a lifelong impact not only on the child, but also on the entire family. If your child has been harmed in an accident that was caused by someone else, you should find an attorney that can help you build a strong case against the negligent party.

In personal injury cases involving children, the court must consider not only the immediate impact of the accident on the child, but also the long-term impact of the accident. It can be easy to focus on the short-term impact on the child, but the long-term effects of injuries on the physical and emotional growth and development of the child should be considered. An experienced attorney can help evaluate how injuries impact children in the future and can work with specialists to help with clients.

If your child has been injured in an accident in Los Angeles, you must be able to prove the extent of the injuries your child suffered, as well as who caused the accident. Building a strong case may involve hiring medical experts, accident reconstruction experts, and any other parties who can help your child in obtaining the maximum compensation possible.

If your child has been involved in an accident caused by another party in Los Angeles, call me, Conal Doyle, Los Angeles child accident attorney at 310-385-0567. I can help. Call today to learn more or to schedule your free consultation.

A lawsuit that was filed last year alleges that Blue Shield, a health insurance company, has wrongfully denied claims for some types of prosthetic feet. The lawsuit was filed by two customers of Blue Shield whose claims for prosthetic limbs have been denied. The lawsuit is ongoing.

The lawsuit claims that Blue Shield routinely denies requests for microprocessor-controlled prosthetic feet. Microprocessor-controlled feet are prosthetic feet that are powered by microprocessors instead of by the human body. The company has developed and implemented a written medical policy called “Microprocessor-Controlled Prostheses for the Lower Limb”. The policy says that Blue Shield considers microprocessor-controlled feet as investigational.

In its documentation, Blue Shield references studies on microprocessor-controlled feet. The studies concluded that microprocessor-controlled foot prostheses provide significant benefits over mechanical feet, yet according to the lawsuit Blue Shield ignores that aspect of the studies. The lawsuit also claims that there are numerous other studies that support the effectiveness of microprocessor foot-ankle technology.

Prosthetics which are powered by microprocessors are significantly more expensive than those powered by the body. Therefore, insurance companies are reluctant to cover them. If you believe your claim for a microprocessor prosthesis was incorrectly denied by an insurance company, call me, Conal Doyle, Amputation Attorney, at 310-385-0567. I can help. Call today to learn more or to schedule a free consultation.

Anthem, a health insurance company, has been sued for its failure to pay for some artificial limbs for its customers who are suffering from limb loss. Anthem, as well as other insurance companies, has refused to pay for some computerized artificial limbs. Those limbs are more expensive than other, more basic limbs.

According to the lawsuit, Anthem has made a number of claims for why those prostheses are not covered. One of the allegations is that microprocessor-controlled limbs (or computerized limbs) are primarily for athletic endeavors, not for normal activities of daily living. However, the lawsuit alleges that the primary advantages of microprocessor limbs are safety and stability for the user. Standard microprocessor limbs dot not help with speed or ability to engage in athletic endeavors. The lawsuit claims that there are other, very different types of prosthetics whose purpose is to help with sports.

The lawsuit claims that microprocessor limbs are simply used to help simulate the movements of normal limbs. They respond to feedback from the sensors to the microprocessor, which changes the downward and upward motion of the limb based on a number of factors. According to the lawsuit, these devices are established and accepted by the medical community as “standard” prostheses and are routinely prescribed for people meeting certain criteria.

If you are an amputee and you have had your claim for a prosthesis denied, you should speak with an attorney. Call me, Conal Doyle, personal injury attorney, at 310-385-0567. I am currently involved in several lawsuits against insurance companies and I can help. Call today to learn more or to schedule a free consultation on your case.

Two individuals who have lost limbs and were insured by United Healthcare sued the insurance company. The plaintiffs claimed that the company has been issuing blanket denials on certain types of prosthetic devices without investigating the situation.

United has a guideline that it uses to determine coverage for prosthetic devices. The guideline states that “If more than one prosthetic device can meet the member’s functional needs, benefits are only available for the prosthetic device that meets the minimum specifications for the member’s needs.”

According to the lawsuit, the company uses that provision to systematically deny coverage for prosthetic arm and leg devices without properly assessing or determining the member’s functional needs, without properly assessing or determining how the requested prosthetic device meets the “minimum specifications” of the individual’s needs, and without ascertaining or identifying an alternative prosthetic device that meets the “minimum specifications” of the individual’s needs.

Two individuals sued the company, claiming that it refused to provide a microprocessor-controlled limb without even assessing their needs, the minimum specifications for their needs, and what device met their needs. Instead, the company simply notified the customers that the devices requested were not the most basic and issued denials without any investigation.

If you were a customer of United and the company refused to pay for your prosthesis, you should speak with an attorney. Call me, Conal Doyle, personal injury attorney, at 310-385-0567. I am currently working on several lawsuits against health insurance companies that are refusing to provide coverage for certain limbs. Call today to learn more or to schedule a free consultation.