Editorial standards, review, and fact-checking policy
This page explains exactly how MVA Lawyer Network researches, writes, checks, corrects, and funds everything you read here. Every legal statement on this site is written against the primary source, read line by line by a named editor before it publishes, and dated so you can see how current it is. We are not a law firm, and this site does not give legal advice.
By Michael Mangione, Legal Research EditorLast reviewed August 1, 202612 min read
Primary sources only Named editor sign off Every page dated Corrections published, not deleted Referral fees disclosed Independent, not a law firm Primary sources only Named editor sign off Every page dated Corrections published, not deleted Referral fees disclosed Independent, not a law firm
Sourcing rule
Primary authority only
We cite the statute, the regulation, or the decided case itself, never another firm's summary of it.
Who reviews
A named human editor
Michael Mangione reads every page line by line and signs off before it publishes.
Review cycle
At least once a year
Plus an immediate review of every affected page whenever the underlying law changes.
How we are paid
Referral fees, disclosed
No attorney can buy coverage, placement, ranking, or a favorable description on this site.
Key takeaways
Every legal claim traces to a primary source. If we say the law requires something, we link to the section of the regulation or the decision that says so, on a free public database you can open yourself.
A named person is accountable. Pages are not published anonymously. The editor who reviewed the page is named on it, and the date of that review is printed on the page.
We correct in public. When we get something wrong, we fix it, say what changed, and update the review date. We do not quietly delete a page and pretend it never existed.
Our money is disclosed, and it does not buy coverage. We may be paid a referral fee if you hire an attorney through us. No attorney pays to be described a certain way, and no fee changes a single sentence on this site.
Editorial content, not legal advice
This page describes our publishing process. Like everything else on this site, it is general information rather than legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Nothing here is a guarantee, warranty, or prediction about the outcome of any case, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. For advice about your specific situation, talk to a licensed attorney. If you are facing an emergency, call 911.
01 What this policy covers
Quick answer
This policy applies to every page, guide, and article on MVA Lawyer Network. It sets out where our information comes from, who checks it, how often it is reviewed, how we correct mistakes, and how we are paid. MVA Lawyer Network is an independent publisher and attorney referral service. It is not a law firm, it does not provide legal advice, and using this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Most people who land on this site are having one of the worst months of their life. They are hurt, or someone they love was killed, and they are trying to work out what to do next while an insurance adjuster is already calling. That reader deserves to know where the information in front of them came from and who is standing behind it. That is the whole reason this page exists.
Search results for accident and injury questions are crowded with pages written to rank rather than to be right. Many repeat a number that no agency ever published. Many summarize a case incorrectly, or cite a decision that has since been overturned. Because the stakes here are money, evidence, and legal deadlines that cannot be reopened once they pass, we treat this site as a health and money category, which means the bar for accuracy is higher than it would be for ordinary consumer content.
What we are. We are an editorial publisher first and a referral service second. We research how accident and catastrophic injury claims actually work, write it down in plain language, and then, for readers who want it, connect them with an independent attorney licensed in their state. You can read more about the organization and the people behind it on our about page.
What we are not. We are not a law firm. We do not represent anyone, we do not accept cases, we do not appear in court, and we cannot tell you what to do about your specific claim. Every attorney we connect a reader with is independent and is solely responsible for their own legal advice and representation.
Where the answers come from
If we cannot point to the primary text, we do not print the claim.
02 How we decide what to publish
Quick answer
We publish where a real question is being asked and where a wrong answer would cost someone money, evidence, or a deadline. Search volume alone is never a reason to publish. If we cannot answer a question better than the pages that already rank for it, we do not add another page to the pile.
Topic selection is an editorial decision, not a keyword decision. Before a page enters the queue, it has to clear four tests. If it fails any one of them, it does not get written.
A real person is actually asking it
The question has to come from something a hurt person or a grieving family would genuinely type or say, not from a phrase a tool generated because it looked easy to rank for.
The answer is knowable from primary sources
If the honest answer is that it depends entirely on facts we cannot see, we say that plainly instead of manufacturing false precision around it.
Getting it wrong has a real cost
We prioritize the questions where a bad answer causes lasting harm, such as missed filing deadlines, destroyed evidence, or a recorded statement given to the other side's insurer.
We can be more accurate than what already ranks
If the existing results are already correct, complete, and properly sourced, republishing the same thing in different words helps nobody.
On the words we choose
We prefer the word private to the word confidential when describing a case review. A conversation with our intake team is private, meaning we do not sell or publish it, but it is not automatically privileged in the legal sense that a conversation with your own attorney is. That distinction matters enough that we do not blur it for the sake of a smoother headline.
03 The sourcing standard: primary authority or nothing
Quick answer
Every legal statement on this site is sourced to the statute, regulation, or decided case it comes from, and every statistic is sourced to the agency that published it. We link to free public databases so any reader can open the original text and check us.
There is a hierarchy behind every sentence we publish, and we work down it in order. We start with the binding text, move to the agency that administers it, and only then consider anything else. Secondary commentary can help us understand a rule, but it never becomes the citation.
What we cite
The United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, cited by section
State statutes and state court decisions, cited by their official citation
Published federal and state appellate opinions
Data published by the agency that collected it, such as NHTSA, FMCSA, and CDC
Peer reviewed medical literature for injury and prognosis questions
Rules of professional conduct and consumer protection regulations
What we will not cite
Another law firm's blog post standing in for the statute itself
Settlement averages with no published methodology behind them
Aggregator sites that recycle numbers without naming an origin
Press releases treated as neutral findings
Any figure we cannot trace back to a named, checkable source
Anonymous testimonials or reviews we cannot verify
Fifty states, and why we never publish one national answer
MVA Lawyer Network publishes for readers in all 50 states, and most of what actually decides a motor vehicle claim is state law rather than federal law. Federal rules govern the trucking industry, but the deadline to file, the effect of shared fault, and who may bring a claim for a death are all set state by state. That shapes how we source.
The filing deadline, called the statute of limitations, is set by each state and commonly runs two to four years from the crash, with much shorter notice periods when the claim is against a government entity. How shared fault is handled is also state law, and most states follow some form of comparative negligence, under which a recovery is reduced by a share of fault rather than erased. Wrongful death claims are creatures of state statute, so who may file and what they may recover changes at the state line.
The rule that follows from this is simple and we apply it without exception. We never state a single national deadline, fault rule, or damages category as though it applied everywhere. Where a rule varies by state, the page says so, names the range, and tells the reader that their own state controls. A page that quotes one number for all fifty states is not being helpful, it is being wrong forty-nine times.
Two examples show why the primary text matters so much in this subject area. Both are short rules that decide real cases, and both are routinely paraphrased incorrectly online.
Regulation
Six months, then the records can lawfully disappear
49 CFR 395.8(k)(1)
A motor carrier must retain a driver's records of duty status, and the supporting documents, for six months from the date of receipt. That is a retention floor, not a promise of preservation, which is why the timing of a legal hold letter can decide whether the evidence in a trucking case still exists. We cite the section rather than a summary of it because the exact retention period is the entire point.
Regulation
A 1980 insurance minimum that was never indexed
49 CFR 387.9
The minimum level of financial responsibility for most for-hire carriers of non-hazardous property in interstate commerce is $750,000, with higher figures for certain hazardous materials. That floor was set in 1980 and has not been adjusted for inflation since, which is a verifiable fact about the schedule rather than an opinion about whether it is adequate.
04 How a page is fact checked before it publishes
Quick answer
Every page moves through the same seven step review before it goes live. Nothing publishes on a deadline. A page that fails any step goes back into the queue rather than out to readers.
The steps below are the actual production pipeline, not an aspiration. The point of writing them down is that a published process can be checked against the published pages, and a reader who thinks we missed a step can say so.
1
Build the source list first
Before a word is drafted, the editor assembles the controlling statutes, regulations, decisions, and datasets for the topic and reads them in full. Drafting starts from the sources, not from other websites.
2
Draft with the primary text open
Each legal statement is written while the governing text is on screen. Section numbers, retention periods, dollar figures, and holdings are transcribed directly rather than recalled.
3
Verify claim by claim
The draft is broken into individual factual claims. Each one is matched to the specific source that supports it. Claims that no source supports are cut, not softened with hedging language.
4
Open every citation and confirm it is still good law
Each link is clicked. Each case is checked for later history, including reversal, superseding authority, or a circuit split that has since been resolved. A citation that is no longer current is replaced, not left in place with a caveat.
5
Rewrite for a reader in crisis
The page is rewritten in plain language for someone reading on a phone in a hospital hallway. Legal terms are defined in line, and the required disclaimers are placed where they will actually be seen.
6
Named editor sign off
The editor reads the finished page line by line, confirms the sourcing, and dates the review. That name and date are printed on the page. Nothing publishes without them.
7
Schedule the next review
Every page is entered into a review calendar with a fixed re-check date, and is flagged for immediate re-review if the law or the underlying data changes before that date arrives.
The bottom line. A page on this site is not finished when the writing is good. It is finished when every claim on it has a source, every source has been opened, and a named person has put their name and a date on the result.
05 How we cite statutes and case law
Quick answer
We cite regulations by section number and cases by their official reporter citation, then link to a free public database such as the Cornell Legal Information Institute, Justia, or the court's own website. Before publication and at every scheduled review, we check whether the authority is still good law.
Case law moves. A holding that is settled in one circuit can be rejected in another for years before the Supreme Court resolves it, and a page that quietly relies on the losing side of that split becomes wrong without anyone touching it. The clearest recent example in this practice area is broker liability, which is worth walking through because it shows what our review cycle is actually for.
1994
Congress writes the preemption rule
The FAA Authorization Act preempts state laws related to a carrier's or broker's prices, routes, and services, but carves out an exception preserving state safety regulatory authority with respect to motor vehicles.
2020
Miller v. C.H. Robinson
The Ninth Circuit holds that the safety exception saves a negligent hiring claim against a freight broker, allowing the claim to proceed.
2023
Ye v. GlobalTranz deepens the split
The Seventh Circuit reaches the opposite conclusion, and courts around the country divide on whether these claims survive preemption at all.
2025
The Seventh Circuit affirms, and cert is granted
The court of appeals affirms dismissal of the negligent hiring claim, and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case to resolve the division among the circuits.
May 2026
A unanimous Supreme Court resolves it
The Court holds that the safety exception does cover negligent hiring claims against brokers, and the split disappears. Every page on this site that touched broker liability required review.
Landmark case
Broker negligent hiring claims are not preempted
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, 608 U.S. ___ (May 14, 2026)
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett held that a state law negligent hiring claim against a freight broker falls within the FAAAA safety exception at 49 U.S.C. 14501(c)(2)(A) and is therefore not preempted, because requiring a broker to use ordinary care in selecting a carrier concerns the motor vehicles that will carry the goods. The Court expressly left open whether the same analysis applies to purely intrastate loads under a separate subsection. Read the opinion
How that reaches the site
When a decision like this lands, it does not wait for the annual cycle. The standing rule is that a change in controlling authority triggers same week review of every page that relies on it. The editor pulls the affected pages, checks each statement against the new opinion, rewrites what the decision changed, notes what it expressly left open rather than overstating the holding, and re-dates each page. The old citation is not simply swapped out. The reasoning around it is rewritten so the page says what the law now says.
Checked, dated, and signed
A published process can be held to account. An anonymous one cannot.
06 How we handle data and statistics
Quick answer
Every number on this site names the agency that published it and the year it covers. We do not round figures to make them sound better, we do not present a percentage without saying what it is a percentage of, and we say so plainly when a set of figures does not add up to one hundred percent.
Numbers get abused in this category more than anything else. A single national fatality figure gets restated as a local one. A percentage of one population gets quietly applied to another. A dataset from six years ago gets described as current. Our rule is that a statistic without a year and an agency attached to it is not a statistic, it is a decoration, and it does not go on the page.
Three federal sources carry most of the weight in our subject area. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported 5,472 people killed and 153,452 injured in crashes involving large trucks in 2023. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported about 69,000 traumatic brain injury related deaths in the United States in 2021, and 214,110 TBI related hospitalizations in 2020. The National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center puts new traumatic spinal cord injuries at roughly 18,000 per year, with more than 300,000 people in the United States living with one. Our full breakdown of the crash figures lives in our truck accident statistics research.
A worked example: leading causes of traumatic spinal cord injury
These are the leading reported causes. They are not an exhaustive breakdown, and they do not sum to one hundred percent. We show them that way on purpose rather than rescaling them so the bars look tidy.
Vehicle crashes
38%
Falls
30%
Violence
13%
Sports and recreation
9%
Source: National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center, and the spinal cord injury overview in StatPearls, National Library of Medicine. Percentages are approximate leading causes and do not total one hundred percent.
The number we refuse to publish
There is no reliable average settlement. Any site that quotes one is either guessing or quietly averaging a self selected group of results. A minor soft tissue claim against a single minimum policy and a catastrophic injury claim reaching several layers of excess coverage are not points on the same distribution. We will explain the factors that drive value, and we will decline to invent a headline figure that would mislead a reader about their own case.
Have a question about your own crash rather than about our sourcing?
07 Corrections, updates, and the review cycle
Quick answer
Every page carries a last reviewed date. Pages are re-checked at least once a year, and immediately whenever the governing law or the underlying data changes. When we get something materially wrong, we correct it on the page, describe what changed, and re-date it. We do not delete a page to make an error disappear.
A date on a page is a promise, so we only print one when it is true. If a page says it was reviewed in August 2026, a person read it in August 2026 and checked its citations. We do not run a script that updates the date on untouched pages to make a site look fresh, because that misleads exactly the reader who is trying hardest to be careful.
Not every change is the same size, so we handle them in four tiers.
Tier one, a typographical fix
A spelling error, a broken link, or a formatting problem. Fixed on sight, no note required, because nothing a reader relied on has changed.
Tier two, a factual correction
A wrong figure, date, section number, or citation. Corrected, noted on the page, and the review date is updated.
Tier three, a material correction
A statement that could have caused a reader to act against their own interest. Corrected with a visible note explaining what the page previously said and why it was wrong.
Tier four, a retraction
A claim we can no longer support at all. The claim is removed and the page carries a note saying so. The page is not silently deleted.
How to report an error. If you believe something on this site is wrong, tell us and point to the source you think we missed. Reports that identify a specific claim and a specific authority get reviewed first, and a correction that is supported gets made whether or not it is convenient for us.
08 Independence, and how we are funded
Quick answer
We are paid a referral fee when a reader we connect goes on to hire a participating attorney. That is our entire business model, and we disclose it on every page. Attorneys cannot pay for placement, coverage, a ranking, or a favorable description, and no fee has ever changed a sentence on this site.
Every publisher in this space is paid by someone. The question a reader should ask is not whether money is involved, but whether the arrangement is disclosed and whether it is allowed to touch the editorial. Ours is disclosed, and it is not.
Lawyer referral arrangements are regulated, and we build to those rules rather than around them. Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may not make a false or misleading communication about their services, and may pay the usual charges of a qualified lawyer referral service, subject to the rules of the state where they are licensed. Consumer protection law adds a second layer. Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits unfair and deceptive practices, the FTC Endorsement Guides govern how material connections must be disclosed, and the FTC rule on consumer reviews and testimonials, effective October 21, 2024, specifically prohibits running a review site that appears independent while actually being controlled by the business being reviewed.
Consumer protection rule
Why a paid arrangement has to be visible
16 CFR Part 465, effective October 21, 2024
The Federal Trade Commission's rule on consumer reviews and testimonials prohibits, among other things, fake or fabricated reviews, undisclosed insider reviews, and company controlled review websites that falsely present themselves as independent. We read that rule as the floor rather than the ceiling, which is why our compensation is stated on the page rather than buried in a footer nobody scrolls to.
In practice, that means a short list of hard commitments. No attorney appears on this site because they paid to appear. No description of an attorney's experience is written or approved by that attorney. Advertising spend does not affect whether a firm is described favorably, and declining to participate does not get a firm criticized. Requesting a free case review costs you nothing, carries no obligation, and does not commit you to hiring anyone.
An open gap we are not going to hide
This site does not yet have a named licensed attorney reviewer. Our editor is a legal research editor with more than twelve years working inside contingency based firms, and he is not a practicing attorney. Adding a licensed attorney to review legal content is the most significant improvement still outstanding on this site, and we would rather say so here than imply a level of review we do not currently have. Until that changes, treat everything here as researched editorial content and take anything that affects your own claim to a licensed attorney in your state.
Our standing rules
Some things are not close calls, and we do not publish them.
09 What we will never publish
Quick answer
We will never invent a statistic, a case, a verdict, a quotation, or a reviewer. We will never promise or predict an outcome. We will never publish a testimonial we cannot verify, and we will never present paid placement as an independent recommendation.
We will always
Name the source and the year behind every figure
Print the reviewer's name and the date of review
Say plainly when the honest answer is that it depends
Disclose that we may be paid if you hire through us
State that we are not a law firm and give no legal advice
Correct a supported error whether or not it suits us
We will never
Fabricate a case, statute, verdict, statistic, or reviewer
Guarantee, promise, or predict the outcome of a claim
Publish an average settlement figure with no methodology
Use fake urgency or fear to push a reader to submit a form
Let an advertiser review, approve, or edit editorial copy
Present a paid placement as an independent recommendation
Questions worth asking of any legal information site, including this one
If this policy is useful to you, apply it everywhere. These are the questions we would want a careful reader to ask before trusting any page about their claim.
Who wrote this page, and is that person named anywhere on it?
When was it last reviewed, and does the site say what reviewing means?
Does every legal claim link to a statute, a regulation, or a decided case?
Do those links open the primary text, or another marketing page?
Does every statistic name the agency that published it and the year it covers?
Is there an average settlement figure with no methodology behind it?
Does the site say plainly whether it is a law firm?
Does it disclose how it is paid, and where does that disclosure sit?
Is there a published corrections policy, and can you find a correction?
Does the page promise or imply any outcome?
Sources and authorities
The authorities below are the ones this policy itself relies on. Each link opens a free public database or the publishing agency, so you can check any statement on this page against the original text.
Professional conduct and consumer protection standards
Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 7.1 to 7.3 on communications about legal services and referral arrangements. American Bar Association.
Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials, 16 CFR Part 465. eCFR, with the Commission's questions and answers.
Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 16 CFR Part 255. Cornell LII.
Unfair or deceptive acts or practices, Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. Cornell LII.
The four standards in short
If you read nothing else on this page, these are the commitments every page on this site is held to.
01
Primary sources only
Legal claims cite the regulation or the decided case itself, never another firm's summary of it, and the link opens the original text.
02
Reviewed and dated
A named editor signs off on every page, the review date is printed on it, and the page is re-checked when the law or the data changes.
03
Editorial, not legal advice
This is general information to help you make decisions, not advice about your specific case, and it creates no attorney-client relationship.
04
Honest about how we operate
We are an independent referral service, not a law firm, and we may be paid if you hire a lawyer through us. That is disclosed, and it buys no coverage.
Michael Mangione Verified editor
Legal Research Editor · Founder, The Mangione Group, Inc.
Michael Mangione is the editor who signs off on the pages described in this policy. For more than twelve years he has worked alongside contingency based law firms across the United States, sitting inside their intake departments, building their qualification frameworks, and studying how individual case types are screened and pursued from the first call through resolution. He brings that vantage point to the editorial work here, where every guide and article is researched against primary sources and reviewed under this published standard before it goes live. Michael is not a practicing attorney and does not give legal advice.
General information about how this site operates. None of it is legal advice, and none of it creates an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific situation, talk to a licensed attorney.
Is MVA Lawyer Network a law firm?
No. MVA Lawyer Network is an independent editorial publisher and attorney referral service. We do not practice law, we do not represent clients, and we do not give legal advice. Using this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Any attorney you retain through a connection made here is independent and is solely responsible for their own advice and representation.
Who writes and reviews the content on this site?
Content is written and reviewed by Michael Mangione, a legal research editor with more than twelve years working alongside contingency based law firms. He reads each page line by line before it publishes, confirms the sourcing, and dates the review. His name and the date of that review are printed on the page. He is not a practicing attorney.
Does a licensed attorney review these pages?
Not at this time, and we say so rather than implying otherwise. Adding a named licensed attorney reviewer is the most significant improvement still outstanding on this site. Until that is in place, treat everything here as researched editorial content sourced to primary authority, and take anything affecting your own claim to a licensed attorney in your state.
How do you make money, and does it affect what you publish?
We may be paid a referral fee when a reader we connect goes on to hire a participating attorney. That is disclosed on every page of this site. Attorneys cannot buy placement, coverage, a ranking, or a favorable description, and no advertiser reviews, approves, or edits editorial copy. Compensation does not change what a page says.
What counts as a primary source?
The binding text itself, or the agency that published the data. That means the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, state statutes, published court opinions, and datasets released by bodies such as NHTSA, FMCSA, and the CDC. Another site's summary of a rule is not a primary source, and we do not cite one in place of the rule.
How often are pages reviewed?
Every page is re-checked at least once a year and is entered into a review calendar with a fixed date. A page is also pulled for immediate review whenever the governing law changes, a cited decision is reversed or superseded, or an agency publishes new data that affects a figure we quote.
What happens when the law changes after a page is published?
A change in controlling authority triggers same week review of every page relying on it. The editor checks each statement against the new decision, rewrites the reasoning rather than just swapping the citation, notes what the decision expressly left open, and re-dates the page. The 2026 Supreme Court decision on broker liability is a recent example that required exactly that sweep.
How do you handle corrections?
In four tiers. Typographical fixes are made on sight. Factual corrections are made, noted, and re-dated. Material corrections, meaning ones that could have led a reader to act against their own interest, carry a visible note explaining what the page previously said. A claim we can no longer support is retracted with a note. We do not delete a page to make an error disappear.
Why will you not publish an average settlement amount?
Because no honest average exists. A minor claim against a single minimum policy and a catastrophic injury claim reaching multiple layers of excess coverage are not points on the same distribution, and any published average is drawn from a self selected group of results. We will explain the factors that actually drive value and decline to invent a figure that would mislead you about your own case.
Do you use AI to write these pages?
Research and drafting tools may assist the process, but no page publishes without a named human editor reading it line by line, opening every citation, and confirming every figure against the source that published it. Responsibility for what appears on a page sits with that editor, not with a tool. Nothing is published on the strength of a machine draft alone.
Do the attorneys you connect people with pay for placement?
No. No attorney appears on this site because they paid to appear, and no description of an attorney's experience is written or approved by that attorney. Referral arrangements are subject to the rules of professional conduct in the state where an attorney is licensed, and to federal consumer protection law governing how material connections are disclosed.
What does it cost me to use this site?
Nothing. Reading the site is free, and requesting a case review costs you nothing and carries no obligation. Participating attorneys generally work on contingency, commonly 33 to 40 percent of any recovery, which means no attorney fee if there is no recovery. Your fee agreement with any attorney you hire is between you and that attorney.
How can I check something you have written?
Open the link. Every legal citation on this site points to a free public database such as the Cornell Legal Information Institute, Justia, or the court's own site, and every statistic points to the agency that published it. If a claim on a page has no source you can open, that is itself a defect and we want to hear about it.
How do I report an error on this site?
Tell us which page, quote the specific sentence, and point to the authority you think we missed or misread. Reports that identify a specific claim and a specific source are reviewed first. A correction that is supported gets made whether or not it is convenient for us, and material corrections are noted on the page rather than made quietly.
Standards are only worth what they change.
One short, private form. No cost, no obligation, and no fee unless you recover. Find out where you stand today.
Private · Independent · Not a law firm · No legal advice
