I do not believe baking a cake is displeasing to the Lord even where it’s for a same-sex wedding reception. Here’s why. The act of baking a cake is not evil – it’s morally neutral – you are not in any way approving of or condoning same sex marriage by simply baking a cake. On the other hand, the minister or one officiating over the “wedding” is directly participating in, approving of, and condoning the “marriage” of the same-sex individuals and has thereby crossed over the line into immoral conduct contrary to God’s Word. For those who contend that the Bible does not prohibit same-sex marriage and condemn homosexuality, Romans chapter 1 alone puts an end to that discussion.  

If you believe same-sex marriage is contrary to God’s Word and simply sell a cake to be used at the reception, you have done no wrong. I would argue it’s even better that a Christian bakery provide the cake as opposed to any old bakery, because it can be used as a witnessing opportunity. You could provide your same-sex customers with a compelling book or a testimony by an individual who was set free from the bondage of homosexuality. I did that very thing for a homosexual client of mine. I heard an incredible testimony by Dennis Jernigan who was a practicing homosexual and was supernaturally set free from homosexuality and is married today and has nine children. I shared a video of this testimony with my client. When he was rushed to the hospital one day, I went to visit him. You see, I was able to develop a relationship with him and have an impact on his life. None of this would have happened, however, had I answered differently the following question he asked when we first met: “I see you’re a Christian; I’m gay; would you have a problem representing me”? “Of course not”, I replied, without hesitating and needing to think about it. Representing a homosexual in a debt related legal matter in no way sanctions (i.e., authorizes or approves of) the act of homosexuality – it’s morally neutral. Who better to represent this gay client than a Christian attorney such as myself who would, and did, share God’s love for him and what the Bible says about homosexuality. 

And who better, in my opinion, to provide a cake for a same sex wedding than a Christian who could share a testimony or make an impression that just might lead the same-sex “couple” to the Lord – if not right away, then perhaps down the road. Ironically, the Kleins ended up taking the very approach I’m suggesting. Two years after refusing to bake the cake and after the incredible ordeal and legal battles they had to endure as a result, they baked 10 cakes and sent them to 10 top gay organizations throughout the United States with a DVD and the following letter: "Hello, we are Aaron and Melissa Klein. We're the bakers who declined to create a cake for a same-sex wedding and were ordered to pay $135,000. We want you to know that our actions were not motivated by hatred, and we personally baked this cake as a small token of our love. Enclosed is an award-winning movie that further expresses our feelings. I would be honored if you would watch it (it's also freely available online at audacitymovie.com). One viewer commented: 'I have to say, as a gay woman who watched Audacity, I agree that the topic was handled with love and compassion, which was refreshing to see ... the message was clear (even if it was one I disagreed with as an atheist).' On behalf of Christians, we want you to know that we do love you, and we are not your enemy (America is about freedom, and freedom for everyone).”

Let’s look at the facts. Seventy-nine year old Stella Liebeck purchased a 49 cent cup of coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru window, spilled the coffee on her lap, sued McDonald’s for the injuries, and was awarded 2.9 million by a jury.  People were shocked and outraged.  The verdict was mocked on T.V., radio, and in the print media.  The case became known as the “million- dollar coffee spill.”  Anti-lawyer sentiment skyrocketed.  The “million-dollar coffee spill” symbolized everything wrong with the current legal system – frivolous lawsuits, greedy lawyers and clients, and out-of-control juries.  Right?

Not quite.  Here’s the whole story: McDonald’s served its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees –scalding hot by industry standards (coffee brewed at home is typically 135 to 140 degrees); a doctor testified it takes less than 3 seconds to produce a third degree burn at 190 degrees; McDonald’s admitted consumers were unaware of the risk posed by the scalding hot coffee and that it was “not fit for consumption” when sold; McDonald’s intentionally served its coffee at these high temperatures to maintain optimal taste; a McDonald’s executive testified that McDonald’s knew its coffee caused serious burns, decided not to warn customers about the danger, and didn’t intend to make any changes; in fact, in the ten years preceding the case, McDonald’s had received over 700 complaints of burns from its coffee (some of which involved children and infants) and paid out over $500,000 to settle claims; Ms. Liebeck suffered gruesome third degree burns on her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas, and underwent debridement treatments (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting; McDonald’s rejected several offers to settle the case for a fraction of the verdict (her lawyer said he would have taken $150,000); Liebeck was only awarded $200,000 for pain and suffering (reduced to $160,000); the remaining 2.7 million was awarded by the jury in the form of punitive damages to punish McDonald’s for engaging in conduct deemed to be “willful, reckless, malicious or wanton”; in arriving at 2.7 million, the jury took into consideration the fact that McDonald’s sold 1.35 million dollars of coffee per day and, thus, 2.7 million equaled two days of McDonald’s coffee sales; Liebeck did not get the 2.7 million; that amount was reduced by the judge after trial to $480,000.  McDonald’s appealed, and the parties thereafter entered a confidential settlement.   

As the foregoing demonstrates, the McDonald’s case is not the “poster child” of frivolous lawsuits as it was portrayed to be.  Rather, it’s a case about a huge corporation that knew its product was dangerous as served and had seriously injured consumers, yet made a conscious business decision to do nothing about it.  As one juror put it, the case was about “callous disregard for the safety of the people.”   

The case is also a good example of how the media sensationalizes things and even engages in misleading and deceptive reporting.  The consequences of this were far reaching.  Capitalizing on the anti-lawsuit hysteria the case produced, corporations and the insurance industry launched a tort reform campaign that resulted in 30 states placing unreasonable limits on pain and suffering awards in personal injury cases, even though Liebeck was only awarded $160,000 for pain and suffering. 

Some lessons from this case: things are not always as they first appear; and, lawyers took a bad rap here they did not deserve. 

I represent clients in all types of dangerous product cases (often referred to as product liability cases) and would be honored to represent you.  

 This blog is written for, and dedicated to, dear believers in Christ who struggle with the idea of paying creditors less than what is owed.

I met with a Christian client to discuss eliminating his debt through debt settlement.  Years ago, he was seriously ill, and, as a result, was deep in debt. He wanted to file bankruptcy, but was counseled, as many Christians are, that it is wrong for a Christian to do so even if the debt is due to illness. Based on this mindset, he decided not to file bankruptcy. Instead, he took the advice of another believer and pursued an investment “opportunity” that was sure to not only get him out of debt, but bring financial independence. Unfortunately, this “opportunity” turned out to be a scam, and, as a result, he is even further in debt than before. Had he received good counsel when he was considering bankruptcy, it would have saved him years of financial hardship and other mistakes. I do not believe it is per se wrong for a Christian to file bankruptcy for the reasons set forth in my article entitled “Bankruptcy – Is it a Sin or Unbiblical to File?” which appeared in The Good News, a Christian newspaper.

There is even a stronger moral basis for debt settlement than bankruptcy. By “debt settlement”, I’m referring to negotiating an arrangement whereby the borrower pays the lender less than what it is owed in exchange for the lender’s agreement to release the borrower from any further obligation on the debt.

The moral basis for debt settlement is quite simple when you think about it. There are two sides to any contract or agreement. Let’s take a credit card for example. The borrower has a moral and legal obligation to repay the charges on the card; the credit card company, in turn, has a moral and legal obligation not to engage in unfair, misleading, deceptive, abusive or illegal conduct. When a credit card company engages in such conduct, it gives the card holder a moral and legal basis to negotiate a settlement and pay less than the full amount owed.

Makes sense and pretty straightforward – right? Then why do so many Christians feel they are doing something wrong in paying a creditor less than what is owed? I firmly believe it’s because essentially all you hear in the Body of Christ is about our responsibility, as Christians, to repay our debt; while that is true, it is also true that creditors have a responsibility, on their end, to comply with the law - something glossed over in Christian circles. Believers in Christ would be very surprised if they knew the extent to which creditors engage in illegal practices. Creditors make untold millions of dollars by violating the law and often don’t get caught. If a credit card company, for instance, illegally overcharges each of its customers a couple of dollars and has say 40 million customers, it just racked in an extra $80 million.  And, trust me, they do far worse things than simply adding on illegal charges. For instance, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, GMAC and a number of other major banks have admitted using fake affidavits in mortgage foreclosure proceedings in which hundreds of thousands of homeowners and families lost their homes. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.  Do a little internet research on deceptive and abusive creditor/lending practices and you’ll be shocked at what you find.

 By reason of the foregoing, I believe there is clearly a strong moral foundation to reach a settlement with a creditor whereby you pay less than what is owed (Luke 12:58; Luke 16:1-8). If you do explore settlement, there are a number of important issues that must be considered and addressed. I handle, and am currently accepting, debt settlement cases.

Many committed believers in Christ aspire to do great things for God. I know I always have. What that means and the road to getting there, however, has taken a decidedly different path than I first imagined. I always viewed my law practice as secondary to God’s call on my life to preach. I’m not saying I don’t pour my heart into my work as a lawyer. Those who know me know that I do, and the four core principles of my practice (www.christianinjuryattorney.net) attest to this. What I’m saying is that I always viewed my law practice as something that would financially support my later ministry/calling to preach the Gospel. Things have changed. I now view my law practice as a ministry.

Let me explain how I got here and what I mean. A law practice is a business and every Christian business owner out there knows how time consuming and costly running a business is.  You feel like you have little spare time and there’s the constant pressure to make money to cover business expenses. Thus, although you may genuinely want to minister to people through your business, it’s easy to get caught up in the day-to-day grind and feel like you really can’t take the time to do so. I’ll never forget the day I decided to put God first in my practice no matter what. I remember saying to myself, “I’m turning my law practice into a ministry effective immediately.” I knew this meant viewing those who sought my counsel as His sheep, as opposed to just clients, for I believe true Christian ministry, first and foremost, involves taking care of the sheep. David illustrates this so well. When Samuel came to his house to anoint the next king of Israel, and one by one the Spirit of God showed him that none of David’s seven brothers qualified, the Bible says there remained one more “… the youngest, and behold, he is tending the sheep.” 1 Samuel 16:11. One chapter later David recounts how he “… was tending his father’s sheep [w]hen a lion or a bear came and took a lamb from the flock” and how David went and found the lamb and rescued it from the mouth of the lion/bear. The New Testament refers to God’s people as sheep. Nothing in life is more important than people. Like David, God wants us to be faithful tending to the sheep he has placed in our spheres of influence right now (our family, friends, co-workers, employees, etc.). Only then will He entrust us with greater responsibility.

Two Scriptures became the cornerstone of my new ministry/law practice. The first was Matthew 6:33: “But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you.” If I put God’s business first, He would take care of my business. For example, if the Holy Spirit prompts me to witness to a potential client or visit a client in the hospital to pray for and encourage them and I do not have time to do so, I am to make time. This doesn’t make sense to the natural mind; it’s counterintuitive. How is one going to make money taking precious time from his/her business attending to someone’s spiritual needs? The reason it doesn’t make sense is because God’s kingdom operates differently than how things operate in this world (often the reverse of how things operate in the world). The second Scripture was Ephesians 6:7, 8: “With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord …”

Turning my practice into a ministry has been a tremendous blessing. There’s no better feeling or sense of accomplishment than when a client bursts into tears and says, “you have no idea what a blessing you’ve been to me and my family.”

It’s December 6, 2003. Brian is filling in for the security guard at the Wilson Farms convenience store on Jay Street in Rochester. Around 11:00 p.m., three men enter the store. Nine seconds later, Brian is shot in the head at close range; he’s on the floor in a massive pool of blood fighting for his life. It's a miracle he survives.

I’m asked to investigate the possibility of bringing a civil lawsuit against the store. This is what I find: the lighting outside the store was poor – easy to see inside the store from the outside; hard for a security guard to see outside the store from the inside; the counter and cash register were negligently placed just inside the front door, not a safe design from a security standpoint; there’s so much clutter in the store, Brian can't see the gunmen as they enter the store through the front door; as he turns the corner of a clutter filled aisle, he’s suddenly face-to-face with an assailant with a sawed off shotgun pointing at him; he has no time to use his gun and defend himself; rather than keeping large amounts of cash in a lockbox that no one, including a robber, could access, the store had several thousand dollars in the cash register; police records revealed one robbery after another in the previous four years – so many the Rochester Police Dept. nicknamed Wilson Farms "stop and rob"; in the previous ten months alone there were three holdups at gunpoint at the Jay Street store; two employees were shot during these holdups; one of the holdups occurred just one month prior; Wilson Farms did not tell Brian any of this when he filled in that night.   

Knowing the case would be very difficult and expensive, I began looking for skilled and experienced negligent security attorneys to co-counsel the case with. I had no idea how hard this would be. A local firm worked on the case with me for sixteen months and then suddenly bailed out. I spent the next nineteen months trying to convince multiple attorneys and firms to co-counsel the case with me. Tremendous time and effort went into this. One by one, however, eleven law firms across the state and country declined to take on the case with me. Security guard work is inherently dangerous (an assumption of the risk type argument), one said. Too complex, another concluded, a jury won’t understand it. Another told me a jury would likely find the shooter one hundred percent responsible, thereby absolving Wilson Farms of liability. No one, but me, thought the case was winnable. 

If two good lawyers turn a case down, that's usually a sign it's not worth pursuing. Something inside me, however, kept telling me justice was on Brian's side and kept me from giving up. Brian's faith also spurred me on. Although he lost his eye and has other very serious and permanent injuries, I never heard him complain once. Together, we kept putting our trust in the Lord – that He was a God of justice and would see to it that justice was done.

Our prayers were answered. But not without more twists and turns. A friend from my law school days agreed to co-counsel the case with me just before the three-year statute of limitations expired. We filed the law suit on the very last day it could be filed. After the lawsuit was filed, however, the store tried to dismiss the case. We had to win an appeal to keep the case going.

At trial, the Rochester Police Dept. provided very helpful testimony. There had been over 100 robberies/robbery attempts at Wilson Farms stores in the Rochester area including six shootings and one death. Something as simple as changing a light bulb was a long, convoluted process that could take months.

During the trial, my friend attended a prayer meeting and asked for prayer for the trial. After the prayer meeting, someone shared two Bible verses (Ezekiel 22:29, 30) that have been pivotal in their life. Those verses speak of the Lord searching for a man to build up the wall and stand in the gap for justice in the midst of a land full of robbery and oppression. Those verses were read to the jury during our closing statement and the jury was told that Brian was the man who stood in the gap for justice at Wilson Farms on that fateful night. On March 9, 2012, the jury found Wilson Farms 50% responsible for the shooting and rendered a verdict for $3.4 million. 

I have handled a number of negligent security cases. Although these cases are inherently difficult, that does not deter me. 

Bodily Injury coverage, commonly referred to as BI coverage, is critical because it protects you in the event you are negligent and injury someone else.  Negligence is simply the failure to act reasonably or to exercise due care under the circumstances.  Some examples: you run a stop sign; you fail to yield the right-of-way; you are driving too fast given the snowy road conditions.  Assume you’re negligent, someone is injured as a result, and you have minimum BI coverage of $25,000 (that’s all that is required in New York).  Your insurance company is only required to pay up to $25,000 to the injured person.  If a jury awards the injured person $500,000, you are personally on the hook for $475,000 (the injured person can look to your personal assets to recover the remaining $475,000).

Let’s change that scenario around a bit.  Suppose you are the one injured (to the tune of $500,000), the other driver was negligent, and he has BI coverage of $25,000.  You go to trial and get a $500,000 verdict. The other driver’s insurance company only has to pay $25,000 of the verdict since that is the amount of his BI coverage. Sure, you can go after the other driver’s personal assets in an attempt to collect on the remaining $475,000.  But what if he doesn’t have any assets to collect from which is usually the case? What if he files bankruptcy discharging his obligation to pay even a penny of the remaining $475,000 verdict?

There is a much easier solution to this predicament if you have the right amount of Supplementary Underinsured/Uninsured Motorists coverage (“SUM coverage”).  This coverage protects you when the negligent party is either uninsured or underinsured.  In our hypothetical, the other driver is underinsured by $475,000 (your injuries are valued at $500,000 and he only has $25,000 in BI coverage).  If you have $250,000 in SUM coverage (and at least that much in BI coverage), you would be able to file an underinsurance claim against your own policy for an additional $225,000.  Trust me, recovering money under your own SUM coverage is much easier than trying to collect against the other driver’s personal assets and can be a real Godsend in these situations.  Determining whether your SUM coverage comes into play, however, is a bit tricky.  It requires a proper understanding of when this coverage is “triggered” under New York law and to what extent. I have seen insurance claims representatives and even some attorneys get this wrong.

The “declarations page” of your insurance policy lists the types and amounts of coverage you have (you should have this, but if you don’t, your agent will provide it upon request). This is where you will find how much BI and SUM coverage you have.  I recommend having at least $250,000 in BI coverage and $250,000 in SUM coverage. More is better. If you have less than these amounts, you will likely be surprised at how little it costs to increase the coverage.

There are other important coverages under your auto insurance policy such as PIP, APIP, OBEL, MedPay, and SSL.  

1. Request a copy of every diagnostic test a doctor orders and carefully review it upon receipt. I’ve had clients pass away because their doctors simply failed to inform them the diagnostic tests they ordered came back showing cancer. Don’t assume test results will be reviewed by your doctor or that the results will be communicated to you. Be proactive and safeguard your health; review every test done. It could save your life.  
2. Examine every prescription to make sure it’s the right drug and the right dosage.  I have represented and consulted a number of individuals who were prescribed drugs they are allergic to, prescribed the wrong drug, and prescribed the correct drug but in the wrong dosage (way too high). I’ve also seen pharmacies give people the wrong drugs, dosages, etc. This can result in very bad, even fatal, consequences. Be proactive and safeguard your health. Do what I do: check every prescription when you get it to make sure it’s the right drug in the right dosage; this is easy because, in addition to naming the drug, the prescription bottle will indicate the shape, color, and identifying number of the drug; open the bottle and make sure the identifying information matches up with what’s inside; if you want to be even more thorough, look the drug up on the internet and make sure the identifying information on the bottle is correct. Hand written prescriptions, often incapable of being read, are a prescription for disaster (pun intended). I have witnessed pharmacists call the prescribing doctor because they cannot read the hand written prescription.  Even though mandatory electronically transmitted prescriptions in New York are forthcoming, mistakes could still happen.
3. Get a second medical opinion (and maybe even a third).  Multiple individuals I’ve consulted with and represented could have avoided malpractice in the first place had they simply obtained a second opinion from another doctor. Why didn’t they? Because they trusted their doctors so much they either didn’t think about it, or decided against it. It’s not a matter of mistrusting your doctor; it’s a matter of being a good steward and safeguarding your health. Doctors are human beings; they make mistakes. Many of these mistakes and the corresponding physical harm could be avoided by simply obtaining a second opinion. There are client testimonials on my website concerning this.
4. Get a second opinion from another doctor not affiliated with your doctor’s practice. This can be equally as important as getting a second opinion. I have seen doctors refer patients to doctors in the same practice/group or to doctors with whom they are affiliated in some way for second opinions. I’ve also seen people schedule these second opinions on their own. Here’s the problem: are these other doctors, given their affiliation with your doctor, going to render a truly objective second opinion? You would think the answer is a resounding “yes” – doctors are supposed to do solely what’s in their patient’s best interests. Unfortunately, and sadly, I have seen many doctors cover for the initial doctor. This can be done in a number of ways: by expressly denying the initial doctor made a mistake; by knowing, but failing to inform, the patient of the initial doctor’s mistake; by being so evasive the patient leaves not knowing whether the initial doctor did, or did not make a mistake, etc.
5. Stay overnight at the hospital with loved ones.  I know it’s a sacrifice, but if possible do it. I have seen major mistakes/omissions made at night in hospitals not only in my practice, but also in regard to family members. Grandparents on both sides of my family, for instance, would have suffered serious harm had it not been for my parents staying overnight at the hospital by their side.

This blog is not meant to imply that all doctors and hospitals make mistakes. Thank God for all of the skilled and conscientious doctors we have. However, when mistakes are made, the consequences can be grave.