On June 26, 2023, Willie McNell was involved in a serious vehicle accident on North Church Street in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, while driving his 1994 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 southbound. A truck pulled out in front of him, causing him to crash and total his vehicle. Although there was no direct contact between the vehicles, the maneuver forced Willie into an unavoidable collision. Police arrived approximately 5 to 10 minutes later, and a report was filed at the scene. Willie confirmed he obtained the at-fault party’s information and sought immediate medical attention. The incident resulted in multiple injuries and extensive losses. Willie reported approximately $100,000 in combined damages and medical expenses following the wreck. He emphasized the severity of the crash and the financial burden that has followed. He also stated that his vehicle was beyond repair and described the damage as total. This case involves strong elements of negligent driving by the opposing party, supported by a police report, documented injuries, and clear financial losses. Willie has retained all relevant documents and appears motivated to pursue legal action. His case presents a clear basis for pursuing compensation under North Carolina personal injury and liability laws, particularly given the scale of medical expenses and property loss.

Loana Edmonds received a spinal pain stimulator implant in 2018, which was recently identified as part of an official medical device recall. She has since experienced worsening pain, functional complications, and overall decline in her condition, prompting her current doctor to recommend full removal of the implant. A corrective surgery is scheduled for April 14, 2025, with no confirmation yet as to whether her medical provider will cover the procedure’s cost. Loana is primarily interested in pursuing a product liability claim against the manufacturer of the recalled implant, citing physical suffering and disruption to her quality of life. While her doctor acknowledged the device must be removed due to its failure, she is still unsure whether the hospital or insurance will take responsibility for her medical expenses. She also confirmed that her device’s serial number matches one on the official recall list, providing a clear foundation for liability. She has preserved key documentation, including the original product packaging and recall details, which will help substantiate her claim. Loana appears cooperative and ready to proceed, and her situation presents a compelling case of manufacturer negligence with the potential for escalating medical costs and long-term damage. If the hospital declines coverage, additional liability concerns may extend to her care provider as well.

Case Summary: Alleged Medical Negligence Leading to Physical, Emotional, and Financial Harm On January 8, 2024, the patient underwent a mastectomy performed by the first doctor in Illinois. The procedure aimed to remove cancerous tissue but resulted in apparent negligence, as excess tissue was left behind. This oversight not only failed to address the intended medical issue but also caused significant disfigurement, necessitating a second surgery to restore the patient’s visual and structural appearance. The patient endured substantial emotional and mental distress due to the disfigurement and the extended recovery process. This has compounded the psychological challenges of coping with an initial cancer diagnosis and treatment. The situation has severely impacted her quality of life, contributing to a prolonged period of emotional suffering. Additionally, the patient experienced financial hardship as the estimated cost of the corrective surgery ranges between $60,000 and $80,000. This financial burden has further strained her well-being. Compounding this, she lost her job as a result of the time she had to step away for the initial procedure, the follow-up corrective surgery, and the recovery periods. This loss of income has significantly increased the financial and emotional toll on her and her family. The patient has gathered substantial evidence to support her claims, including photographs documenting the results of the first procedure and the subsequent disfigurement, as well as medical records and other relevant documentation. These materials clearly illustrate the inadequacy of the initial surgical outcome and its aftermath. This case represents a multifaceted issue involving physical harm, psychological distress, and financial loss. It warrants careful legal evaluation to determine the appropriate course of action for holding the responsible parties accountable and seeking fair compensation for the damages incurred.

In this case, the caller was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving a company-owned 2014 Dodge Caravan for Mellencamp Funeral Home. The collision occurred while traveling eastbound on I-10 in the far-right lane. The vehicle was struck by a Nissan Maxima. The incident was reported and documented via an official police report, which the claimant retains as evidence. At the time of the accident, no immediate injuries were reported; however, the individual is now pursuing compensation for potential medical expenses and unresolved damages. Attempts to reach the responsible party’s insurance provider have been unsuccessful, leading to a delay in any form of resolution or reimbursement. The caller is now seeking legal support to recover damages related to the accident and initiate proper claims through legal channels. No previous legal action has been taken, and all contact information has been provided for attorney follow-up.

Ruby Thomas called to inquire about a potential lawsuit related to long-term use of Zantac, which she believes contributed to serious ongoing health issues. She stated she took Zantac daily for several years, beginning at a younger age, and emphasized that her pharmacy records fully document her usage. Ruby has used the same pharmacy chain throughout her life and mentioned that it holds comprehensive proof of her prescriptions. She also confirmed she is willing and able to obtain those records if needed. Although Ruby declined to share detailed medical diagnoses during the call, she mentioned Zantac caused excessive acid and “a lot of problems,” strongly linking the drug to her current condition. She also made clear that she is motivated by health-related damages, not financial gain, and emphasized her lifelong work history and independence from public assistance. She was cautious about sharing full medical documentation until speaking directly with a legal representative and requested to wait until a lawyer contacts her before proceeding further. Ruby’s call demonstrates a credible interest in pursuing a claim based on documented Zantac use and related health deterioration. She appears to be a reliable, well-spoken claimant who possesses both pharmacy records and potentially supporting medical documentation, making her case worth reviewing for further evaluation under ongoing Zantac-related litigation.

Wynd Johnson contacted regarding an incident at MUSC in Florence, South Carolina, in 2021, where he alleges the hospital committed medical malpractice by failing to treat his diagnosed mental health conditions. He states that while hospitalized, he received no psychiatric consultation, medication, or mental health intervention despite having a longstanding history of mental illness. As a result, he claims his condition has significantly worsened, affecting multiple areas of his life and contributing to ongoing instability. Wynd possesses supporting medical records, including documents from Pee Dee Mental Health Center, which outline his psychiatric diagnoses and confirm his prior treatment history. He is scheduled to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and mental health assessment at a hospital the day following the call, indicating that his condition remains serious and untreated. He reported receiving no reimbursement or follow-up support from MUSC since the incident. The caller is seeking to pursue a malpractice lawsuit for the alleged failure to diagnose and treat during his hospital stay, which he believes constitutes negligence and a violation of medical duty of care. His case centers on omission of treatment in a vulnerable patient population, supported by clear documentation of a preexisting mental health condition and subsequent decline following hospital negligence.

Linda Parker called seeking legal assistance after suffering a workplace injury at McDonald’s in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. On October 28, 2024, she struck the top of her foot against a steel table, resulting in a diagnosed concussion on her foot and significant pain that now prevents her from wearing shoes comfortably. A procedure has been recommended by a foot specialist, and she continues to deal with the physical effects of the injury. Despite the severity of the incident, Linda received little to no guidance from her employer. She was never informed about COBRA or her rights under workers’ comp and had to file her claim independently. Although her medical bills were initially covered, she was later informed that her workers’ compensation provider would no longer assist her, leaving her without support. She’s now navigating the system alone, without a clear understanding of what steps to take next. At 66 years old, Linda has limited experience with technology and paperwork, yet she has managed to gather all relevant documentation related to her injury, including medical records and employer details. Her case reflects a broader issue of potential employer neglect and mismanagement of employee injury claims. She is actively looking for an attorney who can help her hold the responsible parties accountable and ensure she receives the care and compensation she deserves.

On March 6, 2025, Lenard Mariz was involved in a vehicle accident in San Antonio, Texas, when his car was struck by a school bus. Mr. Mariz has identified the school bus driver and possesses clear photo evidence of the damage sustained. He has also secured an official incident report and retains full contact information for both the school and the responsible party’s insurance company. Despite this, the insurance company is giving him the runaround — delaying communication and refusing to cover the cost of repairs, even though all necessary evidence and documentation have been submitted.

On March 13, 2025, in a small town in Missouri, the caller was rear-ended by a vehicle believed to be a Toyota 4x4 truck insured by AAA. The claimant was driving a 2009 Ford Taurus and did not report any injuries at the time. The insurance investigation conducted by the caller’s insurer concluded that the caller was not at fault, and the claim was forwarded to AAA. Despite having a valid claim number and a fault determination, the claimant has received no communication or resolution from AAA, leading to frustration and ongoing vehicle repair issues. The claimant is now seeking legal assistance to understand the status of the claim, enforce repair responsibilities, and ensure proper handling of the case. There is no photographic or witness evidence, but insurance findings may support the claim.

The claimant, states that her former landlady demolished her mobile home without prior notice or consent. Approximately two years prior, the claimant and her husband vacated the mobile home due to unlivable conditions caused by an unresolved electrical issue. She signed over ownership of the mobile home to the landlady after falling behind on rent, as their funds were redirected to kerosene heating during winters without electricity. Despite the transfer of ownership, the claimant was not informed about the demolition and was not given an opportunity to retrieve her belongings, resulting in the loss of all her personal property, appliances, and sentimental items. She questions whether the demolition was legal and seeks clarification regarding her rights and any potential remedies.

On March 6, 2025, Lenard Mariz was involved in a vehicle accident in San Antonio, Texas, when his car was struck by a school bus. Mr. Mariz has identified the school bus driver and possesses clear photo evidence of the damage sustained. He has also secured an official incident report and retains full contact information for both the school and the responsible party’s insurance company. Despite this, the insurance company is giving him the runaround — delaying communication and refusing to cover the cost of repairs, even though all necessary evidence and documentation have been submitted.

On June 26, 2023, Willie McNell was involved in a serious vehicle accident on North Church Street in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, while driving his 1994 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 southbound. A truck pulled out in front of him, causing him to crash and total his vehicle. Although there was no direct contact between the vehicles, the maneuver forced Willie into an unavoidable collision. Police arrived approximately 5 to 10 minutes later, and a report was filed at the scene. Willie confirmed he obtained the at-fault party’s information and sought immediate medical attention. The incident resulted in multiple injuries and extensive losses. Willie reported approximately $100,000 in combined damages and medical expenses following the wreck. He emphasized the severity of the crash and the financial burden that has followed. He also stated that his vehicle was beyond repair and described the damage as total. This case involves strong elements of negligent driving by the opposing party, supported by a police report, documented injuries, and clear financial losses. Willie has retained all relevant documents and appears motivated to pursue legal action. His case presents a clear basis for pursuing compensation under North Carolina personal injury and liability laws, particularly given the scale of medical expenses and property loss.

Case Summary: Alleged Medical Negligence Leading to Physical, Emotional, and Financial Harm On January 8, 2024, the patient underwent a mastectomy performed by the first doctor in Illinois. The procedure aimed to remove cancerous tissue but resulted in apparent negligence, as excess tissue was left behind. This oversight not only failed to address the intended medical issue but also caused significant disfigurement, necessitating a second surgery to restore the patient’s visual and structural appearance. The patient endured substantial emotional and mental distress due to the disfigurement and the extended recovery process. This has compounded the psychological challenges of coping with an initial cancer diagnosis and treatment. The situation has severely impacted her quality of life, contributing to a prolonged period of emotional suffering. Additionally, the patient experienced financial hardship as the estimated cost of the corrective surgery ranges between $60,000 and $80,000. This financial burden has further strained her well-being. Compounding this, she lost her job as a result of the time she had to step away for the initial procedure, the follow-up corrective surgery, and the recovery periods. This loss of income has significantly increased the financial and emotional toll on her and her family. The patient has gathered substantial evidence to support her claims, including photographs documenting the results of the first procedure and the subsequent disfigurement, as well as medical records and other relevant documentation. These materials clearly illustrate the inadequacy of the initial surgical outcome and its aftermath. This case represents a multifaceted issue involving physical harm, psychological distress, and financial loss. It warrants careful legal evaluation to determine the appropriate course of action for holding the responsible parties accountable and seeking fair compensation for the damages incurred.

Potential client contacted Get A Claim regarding a mortgage-related financial issue with Wells Fargo. He stated that from 2012 to 2019, Wells Fargo wrongfully withdrew payments for accidental death insurance that he never knowingly enrolled in. He mentioned receiving a check from Wells Fargo for approximately $6,000, which he initially assumed was reimbursement. However, after reviewing additional documentation with his daughter, he became concerned that accepting the funds may have waived further rights or claims. Complicating the matter, his late wife’s name was also on the mortgage, but no compensation was issued on her behalf, despite the likelihood that the unauthorized charges applied to both parties. He is particularly troubled by the lack of clarity in the documentation and his inability to fully comprehend the legal implications due to vision or literacy challenges. His mortgage was originally with another provider and later sold to Wells Fargo, which has since sold it again. He is seeking clarity, potential legal representation, and restitution for unauthorized deductions, as well as investigation into whether additional reimbursement or action is due regarding his late wife. He has indicated a willingness to call back to complete the intake process, as the initial call was cut short due to technical issues on his phone.

On March 3, 2025, Damaris Vasquez underwent a scheduled hysterectomy at a hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee, to remove fibroids, her uterus, and a fallopian tube. The procedure, which was supposed to last five hours, extended to over nine and a half hours after a surgical error led to her ureter being cut. This unexpected complication forced her into a second emergency surgery, required a blood transfusion, and she was later discharged with a catheter and the possibility of kidney damage due to the injury. She reports that one of the medical providers involved in her care verbally admitted that the injury was a mistake and acknowledged it as medical malpractice. Upon her discharge, Damaris received incomplete medical paperwork, omitting key surgical details and only listing routine medication notes. She currently has at least nine surgical incisions, continues to experience pain and emotional trauma, and has been left uncertain about her long-term recovery due to ongoing catheter use and delayed follow-up care. This case presents a compelling instance of surgical negligence, with a clear chain of events leading to physical harm, unnecessary procedures, and emotional distress, compounded by an explicit admission of fault. Damaris has retained her medical records, photographic evidence of her injuries, and details of those involved. She is seeking legal representation to hold the responsible parties accountable and ensure her experience is addressed appropriately under malpractice law.

In March 2025, a workplace injury occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, resulting in two broken bones. The caller was initially cleared to return to work by hospital staff, only to later discover the severity of the injuries, which required hospitalization and ongoing rehabilitation. The individual is now recovering in a rehab facility and recently received a notice for a hearing scheduled on June 18th, prompting urgent need for legal assistance. There is uncertainty about current legal representation, and the caller is seeking an attorney to review the case and provide guidance, particularly regarding the hearing and possible compensation for the injuries sustained while on the job. Medical documentation and official notices are available to support the claim.

On November 4, 2024, Stacey Fisk was involved in a low-speed rear-end collision when her vehicle struck a Chevy pickup truck that had stalled without brake lights at a green light. The other driver exited his vehicle, apologized, and both parties exchanged information without involving law enforcement. Stacey’s 2009 Saturn Sky Roadster suffered cosmetic damage, which she promptly reported to Farmers Insurance, who then deposited $3,689 to cover repairs. She took the vehicle to Crossroads Collision in Big Spring, TX for an estimate and left it there. The following day, Stacey was contacted by an insurance adjuster named Nick Cain, who informed her that the vehicle had been deemed a total loss and insisted she release possession of the vehicle so he could take photos and proceed with the claim. Under the impression that cooperation would expedite the repair process, Stacey agreed. Without ever receiving the repair estimate, she was told her vehicle had been salvaged and would require a $3,800 payment to recover it. She disputes the valuation, asserting that the repair cost was $4,689 and the car’s market value was $7,895, leaving a difference of only $1,000, which she was never allowed to pay out-of-pocket. Despite her objections and emotional distress—including nearly losing her job due to transportation issues—her vehicle was later returned unannounced and in pieces, after she had already secured a different vehicle. Stacey states that she still owes $12,000 on the Saturn Sky, and that her insurance company has failed to pay the $6,000 settlement promised to her lender. She believes the adjuster may have had a personal interest in her vehicle and acted in bad faith by depriving her of the opportunity to repair it, ultimately causing severe financial harm and emotional distress. This case may involve insurance fraud, bad faith practices, and potential misappropriation of property.

On the evening of March 29, 2025, Robert Vick was struck by another vehicle while proceeding through the intersection of 53rd Street and Raytown Road in Raytown, Missouri. Although there were no reported injuries, Robert stated that the other driver appeared to be heavily intoxicated, and begged him not to call the police. In an act of leniency, Robert agreed and no formal report was filed at the time of the accident. However, the collision caused clear vehicle damage, including a damaged front driver-side fender and misalignment issues on Robert’s 2007 Yukon XL Denali. Robert has retained extensive documentation, including photos of the other driver’s vehicle, driver’s license, and insurance card, as well as his own matching records. He has not yet had the vehicle fully assessed but confirmed the truck is driving unevenly and will require repairs. The driver who struck him admitted fault at the scene, and the positioning of the vehicles clearly supports Robert’s account of what happened. Robert is now seeking legal help to recover repair costs and potentially hold the other party accountable, especially given the implication of intoxicated driving and admitted fault. Despite initially choosing not to involve law enforcement, he appears organized and ready to proceed, making this a strong case for civil recovery based on negligence and property damage.

Raymond Leslie reported a theft of personal property from a storage facility in Indianapolis, Indiana, that occurred on March 1, 2025. He is seeking legal assistance to recover the value of the stolen items and explore a claim for pain and suffering stemming from the incident. He believes the facility may have been negligent in securing the premises, which led to the loss of his belongings. Raymond confirmed that he has documentation and identification related to the storage facility, as well as evidence to support his claim. He has not received any reimbursement or compensation from the facility or any involved party to date. His request for representation includes both recovery of losses and a potential claim for negligence-related emotional and financial hardship. The case involves property loss and possible breach of duty of care by the storage provider, especially if security measures were inadequate. With documented evidence and a clear timeline, this may present a viable civil claim for theft-related damages and facility liability.

The caller is seeking legal assistance regarding a suspected mechanic service scam that occurred in Atlanta, Georgia. After experiencing a check engine light issue, the claimant took their vehicle to a repair shop that charged $700 for what was presented as a necessary fix. However, the very next day, the check engine light returned, and the vehicle showed the same performance as before. Upon returning, the shop redirected the claimant to a second affiliated location, where a different technician corrected the same issue—free of charge—stating that the original part installed was incorrect. This second shop documented the problem and confirmed that the initial location may have misdiagnosed or improperly repaired the vehicle. Notably, this second repair was noted to cost roughly one-third the price, but no additional fee was charged due to internal handling. The claimant has supporting documents from both visits and believes the original $700 charge was unjustified, given that the issue persisted and was resolved elsewhere within the same business network. They are now seeking an attorney’s help to determine whether a claim for reimbursement or deceptive service practices can be pursued.