fbpx

Doug Baier - Senior Counsel

dbaier@tysonmendes.com

Denver, CO: (720) 726-5893

Ft. Lauderdale, FL: (954) 315-0175

Doug Baier is Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ Denver office. Mr. Baier’s practice focuses primarily on complex personal injury matters, including catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases.

Prior to joining Tyson & Mendes, Mr. Baier resolved numerous litigated matters including workers’ compensation, personal injury and criminal cases. He has successfully briefed matters in both state and federal court, and achieved success in numerous jury and bench trials. Additionally, he was named a 2016 and 2017 Washington State Super Lawyers Rising Star.

Mr. Baier graduated cum laude from the University of Miami School of Law in 2010. While in law school, Mr. Baier was awarded the Dean’s Certificate of Achievement for his work in the Health and Elder Law Clinic. In 2007, Mr. Baier graduated from Kansas State University summa cum laude with a B.S. in Business Administration and a minor in Leadership Studies. Mr. Baier is licensed to practice law in Colorado, California, Washington, and Florida.

In his free time, Mr. Baier enjoys traveling, running and playing volleyball.

Recent Posts

Plaintiff Discovery Tactics in Florida: Is There Any Limit?

In Orthopedic Center of South Florida v. Sode So.3d (Fla. 4th DCA 2019), a bicyclist sued to recover for injuries sustained in a bicycle accident. As part of the suit, plaintiff served a subpoena duces tecum on a non-party corporate entity with which the physician, who performed a compulsory medical exam, was affiliated. The non-party healthcare provider filed objections to the subpoena duces tecum as plaintiff sought…

The Howell Effect: How the California Supreme Court Decision Played a Role in the Louisianan Supreme Court’s Decision Simmons v. Cornerstone Investments

Plaintiff was working in the course and scope of his employment when he was injured while attempting to close a roll-up rear bay door that had become jammed. Plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits, including disability and medical expenses. The medical bills charged by plaintiff’s healthcare providers totaled $24,435. However, this amount was reduced to $18,435 in accordance with the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act…

Skiing, Negligence, and Colorado: Limited Liability for Ski Area Operators

The Colorado Ski Safety Act was first enacted in 1979 by the Colorado General Assembly. Some of its purposes are to define the responsibilities of skiers using the ski area and the rights and liabilities between skiers and the skier and ski area operator.[1]

Colorado and the Seat Belt Defense

What was the intent of the Colorado Legislature?

Colorado Revised Statute Section 42.4.237(7) provides that evidence of seat belt non-use “shall be admissible to mitigate pain and suffering damages with respect to any person who was involved in a motor accident and who seeks any subsequent litigation to recover damages for injuries resulting from the accident.”[1] The Supreme Court of Colorado has held the use of the world “shall” signifies the legislature intended for seat belt non-use to be admissible, if the non-use is supported by competent, sufficient evidence.[2] The General Assembly of Colorado enacted the Mandatory Seat Belt Act to promote seat belt use.[3] In the Act, the amount of pain and suffering damages[4] is decreased in proportion to injuries attributable to seat belt non-use.[5] Thus, the legislature’s intent is clear and the non-use of a seat belt is an affirmative defense and is admissible.[6]

Reduction of Damages to Present Value in Florida

In personal injury or wrongful death cases, plaintiffs are often awarded a monetary award as compensation for future loss of earnings or medical care. However, determining the value of such award is often a difficult task. In Florida, a standard instruction in a person injury case is 415.14 Reduction of Damages to Present Value.[1] This instruction reads:

Does Washington State have a Seat Belt Defense?

Seat Belt Law RCW 46.61.688

In Washington State, state statute 46.61.688 requires the use of safety belts. According to the statute, “every person sixteen years of age or older operating or riding in a motor vehicle shall wear the safety belt assembly in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner.”[1] Furthermore, no person may operate a motor vehicle unless all child passengers under the age of sixteen years are either (1) earing a safety belt assembly or (2) are securely fastened into an approved child restraint device.[2] A person who violates this section shall be issued a notice of traffic infraction under chapter 46.63 RCW.[3] If there is a finding a person committed this infraction, it shall be contained in the driver’s abstract but shall not be available to insurance companies or employers.[4]

A Look at SB1146/HB911: Proposed Changes to Florida’s Statute on Construction Defects

In Florida, State Statue 558 covers Construction Defects. This statute requires before a party brings any legal action for an alleged construction defect, 60 days prior, the party must deliver to the other party to the contract a written notice, referring Chapter 558, of any construction conditions you allege are defective and provide such person the opportunity to inspect the alleged construction defects and to consider making an offer to repair or pay for the alleged construction defects.

When an Accident is Unavoidable, is the Driver Still Liable in Florida?

When a driver is confronted with a sudden emergency, he is not held to the same standard of care, which would otherwise be expected. However, neither is he excused from not acting in a reasonable and prudent manner.[1] This is considered the Sudden Emergency Doctrine. Under this doctrine, once the emergency arises, a driver “is not negligent, provided he has used due care to avoid meeting such an emergency and, after it arises, he exercises such case as a reasonably prudent and capable driver would use under the unusual circumstances.” [2]

Overbilling and Liability Insurance: Is a Law Firm Covered?

A look at Evanston Ins. Co. v. Law Office of Michael P. Medved, P.C.

890 F.3d 1195

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Overview of Case

Defendant, Michael Medved, is a Colorado attorney who handled foreclosures. When foreclosing on properties, he billed his attorney fees and costs to clients, which were lenders and investors. However, the attorney fees and costs were ultimately passed on to the property owners (or buyers, if the property was resold). In 2010, the Colorado Attorney General began investigating defendant and other foreclosure attorneys, questioning whether they had overbilled. When the investigation became public, property owners brought a class action against defendant and his firm for overbilling.

You Got Mail! Is Electronic Delivery of Policy Documents Enforceable in Washington State?

A look at Jackson v. Esurance Ins. Co., 2 Wash.App.2d 470 (2017)

Background

Under Washington State law, an insurance carrier must deliver an original insurance policy to the insured “within a reasonable period of time after its issuance.”[1] Before amending or modifying an insurance contract, an insurer must give the policyholder notice and obtain the policyholder’s consent.[2] Washington law does not dictate the manner in which insurers are to deliver notice of changes or amendments to the insured.[3]

Copyright © 2019 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.