Who are we?

Michael Berelc, P.C. works to help individuals and families get the compensation and support they need after they are unexpectedly injured by the negligent actions of another.

Practice Areas

We want our clients to feel as comfortable as possible with all their legal needs. That includes being able to have some consistency on who represents them. Our aim is to provide quality legal representation so that all our clients come back for all their legal needs. Please call to discuss any of your legal issues.

Personal Injury

Have you been hurt due to the negligence of another?  Click here.

Wrongful Death

If you have lost a loved one due to the negligence of another, click here.

Workers’ Compensation

If you have been injured on the job, contact me.

Social Security Disability

Worried about applying for Social Security Disability?

Contact Us Today!

Get a Free Consultation

From our Blog

Posted Panel of Physicians

Posted Panel of Physicians

When you get hurt on the job, the employer should provide you with a posted panel of physicians (if the injury is not an emergency).  This panel is a list of doctors that you are allowed to go see under the workers’ compensation coverage provided by the insurer of the employer.  You may have seen this list around a breakroom or other frequented areas of the workplace.  The panel should be placed in an obvious, conspicuous position, so workers can have access to it if needed.

There are several other rules associated with the posted panel of physicians, but if one is not posted, technically you should be able to go see a doctor of your choosing.  If you are concerned about not being able to see a doctor because you have not been allowed access to a posted panel of physicians, call me for a free consultation to discuss your case.  www.berelc.com

Disclaimer: The articles and entries in this blog/website are provided for information purposes only and is not intended to be, nor should it be considered, legal advice.  Legal advice can only be given by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction following an individualized consultation.  By reading this blog/website, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the blog/website publisher.  You should not rely on any information contained in this blog/website as the publisher makes no warranty as to the accuracy of the information contained within this blog/website.  If you are seeking legal advice, please contact an attorney in your area

Getting married?

Getting married?

If you are thinking about getting married, maybe you should consider not spending the two months salary on that engagement ring.  In a study done by Andrew Francis and Hugo Mialon at Emory in 2014 with a sample of around 3000 people, they found that people who spent between $2,000 – $4,000 on an engagement ring were more at risk for divorce as compared to those spending between $500 and $2,000.  Also, they found that there was a significant hazard of divorce for those who spent $20,000 or more on the wedding (those who spent $1,000 or less had a significant decrease in hazard for divorce).  Some other things that showed a decreased risk of divorce was a high wedding attendance and going on a honeymoon.

So, if you are planning on getting married, have a big, cheap wedding and go on your honeymoon.  You can view the study here… http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480

Adoptive Family v. Girl

Adoptive Family v. Girl

Earlier this year, I was listening to a podcast called Radio Lab that told the story of a girl that was to be adopted by a couple in South Carolina.  The biological mother and father’s relationship had deteriorated before the girl was born and they ultimately broke off their wedding and separated.  The mother told the father that he could either pay child support or relinquish his rights.  The father signed his rights away and he provided no financial assistance to the birth mother for the duration of the pregnancy and through the first four months after the girl’s birth.


When the girl was four months old, the adoptive couple provided the father with notice of the pending adoption and the father stated that he did not consent to the adoption.  The father told the court that he thought was signing his rights away to the birth mother, not the adoptive couple.  The main issue in the case, however, was that the father and the girl were part Cherokee.  The birth mother was not Indian.


The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) was passed to “address the consequences of the abusive child welfare practices that separated Indian children from their families and tribes through adoption or foster care placement, usually non-Indian homes.”  ICWA makes it more difficult to take Indian children away from their families and also gives placement preferences to members of the child’s extended family, other member’s of the Indian child’s tribe, and other Indian families.


The girl was 1.2% (3/256) Cherokee and the South Carolina Supreme Court found that certain provisions of the ICWA applied.  The adoptive parents were ordered to give the child over to the father at the age of 27 months.  The U.S. Supreme Court took up the case on appeal.


The Supreme Court ultimately found in favor of the adoptive parents because the provisions that the father argued did not apply.  ICWA said that “no termination of parental rights may be ordered in the absence of a determination that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.”  In a nutshell, the court said that since the father never had custody of the child (nor prior contact), the continued custody portion of the provision would not apply.  Also, since nobody from the extended family or Indian tribe attempted to adopt the child, the adoptive couple was able to take custody of the child.