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, August 19, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
To those who believe the federal Supplemental Security Income program for severely disabled children is a lifesaver and not a boondoggle, Hulston Poe is a great example.
The 4-year-old was diagnosed with severe ADHD last October, after more than a year of violent temper tantrums, and kicked out of preschool. Case workers said there wasn't much they could do for him.
"We were at a standstill," says his mother, Suzanne Poe, who was scraping by as a single parent of two in Des Moines, Iowa.
Then doctors recommended that she enroll her son in the SSI program this year, and everything changed. A monthly check of $674 helps pay for Hulston's day care, a private tutor and medicines. Perhaps most importantly, the program made Hulston newly eligible for Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for the poor. He gained access to the doctors he needed.
"I can see a light in his eyes again," Poe says. "He just looks so much happier."
Let's hope worthwhile programs like this one don't end up on the cutting block.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
“Can we accept industry-sponsored studies as the basis to go full bore into the use of a product?” said Dr. Dan M. Spengler of Vanderbilt University. “I’m suggesting probably not, based on our experience here.”
Federal and state government agencies do not have the resources to really keep an eye on these corporations, so the government has relied on them to "self-police." But what about the temptation to buy the results of studies that are supposed to ensure reasonable product safety? Again, the suggestion here is that corporate businesses, which are notoriously amoral -- they're in it for the bucks, and they don't take prisoners -- cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.
Read more about Slovis, Rutherford & Weinstein's personal injury practice and our defective products practice here.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Read about our DUI representation services.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Read more about our personal injury and defective products practices.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Ugh.
Read more about our Social Security practice.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
ALEC bills, which largely benefit the organization's corporate members, have been introduced in legislatures in every state - but without disclosing to the public that corporations previously drafted or voted on them through ALEC, Bottari says. More than 800 ALEC-inspired bills are listed on a website, ALECexposed.org, which was created by the center. ALEC supporters say they simply offer conservative lawmakers a resource when drafting legislation.
Many bills that have appeared to be home-grown in Tennessee have roots with ALEC, Bottari says.
"The public never knows that the bill was drafted by a corporation and approved by a corporation, because that process takes place behind the scenes at ALEC."
It's clear that what is happening, mostly below the surface of the public's attention, is a war for power. The ideological right wing fanatics are changing state law with cut-outs like this ALEC, and doing it in an organized, methodical fashion.
And many of our elected public servants here in Tennessee are tied to this odious ALEC:
. . . former Rep. Joe McCord, R-Maryville, who is now chief clerk of the state House, traveled to an American Legislative Exchange Council meeting in San Diego.Oh, and those trips were paid for by -- wait for it -- Tennessee taxpayers. I'll bet Big Insurance and corporate America collectively are laughing themselves silly that you and I are paying for the privilege of them screwing -- you and I.
The ALEC San Diego event was the most popular destination for Tennessee legislative travel last year with 16 attendees from the state — 12 representatives and four senators. Tate was the only Democrat to attend the session, known for developing model legislation with conservative, pro-business themes. Most of billed for six days of per diem at the $185 rate in effect until Oct. 1, or $1,100 each. And most counted it as their one all-expense paid trip and those staying for the full conference had a hotel bill of $1,175 plus varying airline fees.
Monday, July 25, 2011
I like one of the comments, from "roidubouloi":
Some months ago I wrote that the American right is now populated by enemies of the nation who are willing to do us intentional harm to secure political power for themselves. A number of our more rightwing posters scoffed (and worse).
When do I get to say, I told you so? Now?
Sadly, I believe roidubouloi is exactly correct. The right wing zealots in the House are playing with fire, and we're all gonna get burned.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Now, is she sickened the event happened, or is she sickened that the allegation happened? I read the latter interpretation. She ought to resign, and if the UK has an obstruction of justice charge, the hacker and the paper ought to be charged and prosecuted. This strikes me as beyond the pale of decency.
Prosecutors now say the alleged victim has admitted lying about her whereabouts immediately after the alleged attack.
They also say she has fabricated her income and even how many children she has to keep her housing and increase her tax refund.
Authorities also point to a conversation she had with a jailed drug dealer about how she could benefit monetarily from going forward with the case.
None of these purported falsehoods goes to the question of what happened in that hotel room. But the whole scenario highlights what has become maybe the most important factor we, as personal injury lawyers, must consider when we look at whether to run with a case or not.
In recent years, insurance defense lawyers have taken a pragmatic approach to cases where it is obvious their client was at fault or negligent: they admit liability and try the case based on causation and damages. In other words, they take the spotlight off the defendant who caused the harm in the first place, and put the focus squarely on the plaintiff -- did the negligence cause the injuries, and how much should be awarded in money damages. By doing this, the defense will often be that the plaintiff (or his lawyer) is just greedy, is trying to get something for nothing, or that the plaintiff is just lying or fabricating in order to get money from the jury.
Jurys in East Tennessee are very conservative. Our experience has been that any hint that the plaintiff has been less than credible, less than forthright, and the jury will turn him away. In that everyone has some sort of inconsistency in his life, it becomes pretty easy for the defense to smear the plaintiff to minimize or eliminate altogether a verdict for the plaintiff.
It's happened to me, like any other plaintiff's lawyer. A number of years ago, we had a client who was rear-ended by a driver who had looked away from the road. He had $50,000 in bills due to low back surgery. There was no question as to fault, causation, or the seriousness of the injury. However, because the plaintiff had testified one way in his deposition, and differently at trial, the defense lawyer painted him as a man who would say anything to get what he wanted. It wasn't true, but it made for a good story. The jury awarded him $2,000.
The moral of the story is that claimants must be credible. Their account of the incident and their injuries must be consistent throughout the claims and litigation process. And if there is a problem, the claimant must assume the defense knows about thehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif problem. The claimant must tell his lawyer about every "wart" as soon as possible, so the lawyer can try to minimize or eliminate the damage to the claimant's case. Too many times the claimant holds back information from his own lawyer, and they both get sandbagged at trial.
Check out more personal injury frequently asked questions here.
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.