The Rutherford Weinstein Law Group, PLLC blog, covering legal news as well as items of interest to clients, potential clients, and anyone else who happens to view the page. . . . www.knoxlawyers.com
Friday, July 01, 2011
The facility is Colonial Hills, 2034 Cochan Drive, in Maryville. Apparently, the nurses failed to properly monitor coumadin levels in various patients. Coumadin is nasty stuff, a blood thinner used a lot in the elderly to reduce the instance of blood clots, which can lead to strokes and pulmonary emboli. It's basic to coumadin therapy that you must keep a close eye not only on the levels of the medication in the patient, but also food and other drug interactions.
This situation is probably another example of an overworked and understaffed facility which, while common in nursing homes, nevertheless is no excuse for shoddy practice.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Says the Hollywood Reporter:
Like many excellent documentaries, Hot Coffee is more a visual editorial rather than an all-encompassing and comprehensive distillation of a subject matter, in this case, our tort system.
Saladoff's presentation is well structured and logical. It goes something like this:
(1) Big Business and Big Insurance ["The Bigs"] use unlimited funds to propagandize the big lie that there are too many "frivolous" lawsuits. They use catchy phrases like "jackpot justice." They demonize the lawyers who represent injured victims of negligence. They stereotype all claimants into the one grab bag of hustlers looking for something for nothing. In other words, they prey upon the ignorance of the public.
(2) If the negative propaganda is not enough to dissuade people from filing suit, then The Bigs work to enact caps, or limits, on damage awards to limit their exposure. Thus, even if a jury has disregarded the propaganda and returned a big verdict, it's all for naught anyway. The filmmaker cites the Nebraska case of the severely brain damaged boy [obstretrical negligence], who had a life care plan of $6 million. After trial, the jury verdict was over $5 million. The judge cut the award to $1.25 million because of Nebraska's law capping all damages at $1.25 million. So now, he's dependent on state and federal funds (Medicaid, Medicare) to pay for his ongoing life care needs. Big Business and Big Insurance don't care, as long as they don't have to pay for it.
(3) If The Bigs get a case that, despite the propaganda gets a big verdict, and despite the legislative maneuvering is not subject to a cap on damages, then The Bigs spend millions and millions of dollars ensuring that pro-business judges are elected to state appellate courts. The filmakers cover the story of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz who, having eked out a narrow victory over the U.S. Chamber of Commerce candidate, was then criminally prosecuted for three years for a variety of questionable/bogus charges. He was acquitted on all counts, but couldn't sit on the bench during that three years, and was subsequently defeated in the next election.
And,
(4) Big Business and Big Insurance have been remarkably successful in getting businesses to require mandatory arbitration, forcing people to waive their right to a jury trial in court. The arbitrator is commonly selected by the business, and the business wins in the arbitration something like 87% of the time.
This film is truth-telling at its best, and should be required viewing for anyone interested in our civil justice system. Or what's left of it.
UPDATE: Here are some of the HBO re-broadcast dates and times:
HBO: June 30 (1:30 PM), July 2 (10:00 AM), July 5 (10:30 AM), July 10 (4:00 PM), July 12 (12:30 AM)
HBO2: June 29 (8:00 PM), July 16 (6:10 AM), July 25 (4:55 AM), July 28 (6:30 PM)
It is also available on HBO's On-Demand service.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
DVDs will be available in September. You can sign up to pre-order DVDs here.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Cobbins’ defense attorney, Kim Parton, refused Thursday to raise that issue [Judge Richard Baumgartner possibly being under the influence of pills] as grounds for an automatic motion for new trial filed in Cobbins’ case. She was so emphatic in her belief that Baumgartner, who has since resigned and pleaded guilty to a felony charge of official misconduct, was in his right mind when Cobbins was tried that she sought to withdraw from representing Cobbins, who insisted she argue he deserved a new trial because of Baumgartner’s alleged impairment.
Richard Baumgartner was a distinguished lawyer and judge. As a Criminal Court jurist, he presided with dignity and grace over many of the most difficult and notorious cases in Knox County over the past two decades. Anyone who saw how ravaged his face became over the past couple of years knew that he was suffering from something. I thought it was merely him aging; I had no idea what he was going through.
For Kim Parton to refuse to raise the "judge under the influence" issue shows what trial lawyers are capable of. It's a no-brainer argument, one would think, at least if one gets one's education from the plethora of stupid lawyer shows habitually on the air. Howver, unless there is some evidence that Baumgartner actually was under the influence at the time of the trial, or that his conduct was somehow degraded to the point where the defendant failed to get a fair trial, Ms. Parton is absolutely right to refuse to raise the argument. And she is absolutely right to move to withdraw as counsel if the client is insisting she do something she believes is inappropriate. That's what lawyers are supposed to do: use independent legal judgment, regardless of how unpopular that judgment might be.
Kim Parton gets my "Lawyer of the Week" award (I invented it just now, just for her).
Either they are a safe business and therefore eligible to bid jobs in the future, or they are unsafe and should be removed from all current work now. And if there is a finding that Britton is unsafe, is it not dangerous to the workers on their job site -- not to mention the public -- to allow them to continue? If they are a safe business, then why would TDOT implicitly defame them by tossing out the notion that they might be prohibited from future bidding? It strikes me as contradictory to let them finish current jobs, presumably safely, but perhaps bar them from future bidding.
TDOT, make up your mind.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Who cares which way to characterize it? This is just wrong.
UPDATE: Apparently the jury saw it my way: Families awarded $100K each in Wayne County hazing case
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Guys, let's fix these problems, OK?
Friday, May 27, 2011
UPDATE: Sure enough, it looks like there will be a legal challenge to this odious new law.
This is what I've been saying. Instead of working to improve our state's economy and generate new jobs, the Governor and Legislature have been taking care of their pals in Big Insurance and Big Business. If you don't like your elected representatives brazenly taking away your rights through the so-called "tort reform (I call it "rights restriction") legislation -- rights you have had for over a century -- then vote them out of office. I'll be right with you there.