Wennesday was an 18+ day and today gives rise to hearings in Clarksville in the morning and an important deposition in Brentwood in the afternoon.
Pardon me, folks, but I am taking a day off.
Wennesday was an 18+ day and today gives rise to hearings in Clarksville in the morning and an important deposition in Brentwood in the afternoon.
Pardon me, folks, but I am taking a day off.
Dr. Bill Frist, who serves both as Majority Leader of the United States Senate and Founder and CEO of APCDBAV (Association of Physicians Capable of Diagnosing Brain Activity Via Videotape), applied for renewal of his medical license in Tennessee, pledging that he met the CME requirements of the State.
This article suggests that he did not.
The excuse? "’As a result of a change in Tennessee’s regulations several years after Dr. Frist came to the Senate, he may be required to complete additional continuing medical education hours,’ spokesman Matt Lehigh said in a statement. ‘A representative of the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners has been contacted, and Dr. Frist will meet every requirement of the Board.’"
Former Justice Penny White, former Judge Joe Riley and I are holding our civil trial practice seminars again this Fall.
We started Justice Programs three years ago with the idea that, with increasing specialization in the Bar, a large number of people would prefer to attend an "annual review" program that was focused on the law of interest to civil trial lawyers. Attendance at the seminars have exceeded our expectations and have grown by leaps and bounds each year. We believe that this year’s program will be even better than the one we offered last year and registrations are already flowing into our headquarters in Ripley.
Here is our schedule for 2006:
Damage paid for personal injury claims are not taxable, right? Wrong. Damages paid for personal injury claims "“on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness” are not taxable. 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2). Damages paid for purely emotional injuries are taxable, at least in the opinion of the IRS.
Now, along comes Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 05-5139 (D.C. Cir. August 22, 2006). Murphy received "damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation she was awarded in an adminstrative action she brought against her former employer." She was asked to, and did, pay taxes on the award, and then sued to get her tax payments back. She tried to argue that the payments fell within the exclusion of § 104(a)(2), but that failed. However, the Court held that "§ 104(a)(2) is unconstitutional as applied to her award because compensation for a non-physical personal injury is not income under the Sixteenth Amendment if, as here, it is unrelated to lost wages or earnings."
The Court said "it is clear from the record that the damages were awarded to make Murphy emotionally and reputationally “whole” and not to compensate her for lost wages or taxable earnings of any kind. The emotional well-being and good reputation she enjoyed before they were diminished by her former employer were not taxable as income. Under this analysis, therefore, the compensation she received in lieu of what she lost cannot be considered income and, hence, it would appear the Sixteenth Amendment does not empower the Congress to tax her award." It went on to say that "every indication is that damages received solely in compensation for a personal injury are not income within the meaning of that term in the Sixteenth Amendment. First, as compensation for the loss of a personal attribute, such as wellbeing or a good reputation, the damages are not received in lieu of income. Second, the framers of the Sixteenth Amendment would not have understood compensation for a personal injury — including a nonphysical injury — to be income. Therefore, we hold § 104(a)(2) unconstitutional insofar as it permits the taxation of an award of damages for mental distress and loss of reputation."
Here is an interesting site that provides a good number of links of use to tort lawyers (and others). The site is published by the Philadelphia Association of Paralegals and has more than 100 links.
For instance, Omni Medical Search is a site that I was unfamiliar with that is referenced by the PAP. It looks great.
Enjoy.
Next Wednesday (August 16, 2006) I will be presenting a one-hour seminar on Tennessee tort law. The seminar is called "Tennessee Tort Law: What’s Hot, What’s Next."
The telephonic seminar is sponsored by M. Lee Smith & Co. and begins at 10:00 CDT. Register here.
Have you ever been struggling with an evidence issue and wanted to avoid standing up to grab a copy o fthe Federal Rules of Evidence?
Here is a copy.
And here is a copy of the Tennesse rules.
"What duty does an HIV-positive individual have to avoid transmitting the virus? What level of awareness should be required before a court imposes a duty of care on an HIVpositive individual to avoid transmission of the virus? What responsibility does the victim have to protect himself or herself against possible infection with the virus?" Those are questions raised in a recent case before the California Supreme Court.
Why did Bridget sue her husband? : "Bridget [the wife] allege[d] that John [her husband] became infected with HIV first, as a result of engaging in unprotected sex with multiple men before and during their marriage, and that he then knowingly or negligently transmitted the virus to her. John, who now has full-blown AIDS, allege[d] in his answer that Bridget infected him and offers as proof a negative HIV test conducted in connection with his application for life insurance on August 17, 2000, six weeks before Bridget discovered she was infected with HIV." Bridget sued John for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence. John not only alleged that Bridget gave him HIV but also alleged that fault should be assessed against her because she did not insist that he wear a condom.
The case went up a discovery issues: what scope of discovery should be permitted the alleged negative HIV test results six weeks before Bridget’s diagnosis? And what about the right to privacy? Of course, the scope of discovery is in some ways depend on the viability of the various causes of action and that is where the Court got into substantive tort law.
A website has been launched that will help doctors and the public identify patients and lawyers who filed medical malpractice cases.
Here is a nice summary: "The LitiPages.com Attorney Database allows victims of medical malpractice to screen prospective attorneys and, if they so choose, avoid lawyers who consistently fail to obtain jury verdicts for their clients. The LitiPages.com Patient Database allows physicians to identify individuals who have demonstrated unrealistic expectations of the health care system through their participation in a medical malpractice lawsuit whose merit was not supported by a jury verdict. Finally, LitiPages.com also provides informational resources to patients who have been the victims of legal malpractice. "
Why is the site necessary? "A physician may feel that a patient who has filed a medical malpractice suit and lost a trial before a jury of their peers harbours unrealistic expectations of their physician and probably of the health care system at large. In the same way, a physician may feel that a patient who files a medical malpractice case only to later withdraw it (or have it dismissed) likewise must have held unrealistic expectations of their physician. The patient who files "shotgun" lawsuits against every doctor listed in their chart when only one (if any) of those doctors was negligent may be perceived by a physician to be out of touch with medical reality. Accordingly, a responsible physician who feels that a patient’s behaviour demonstrates unrealistic medical expectations has both a right (and arguably a responsibility) to refuse elective care to that patient. The attorneys who counseled such patients and filed their cases must subscribe to similarly unrealistic expectations of physicians and of the health care system in general. Appropriately, a physician who feels that an attorney’s behaviour demonstrates unrealistic medical expectations has the right to refuse elective care to such an individual."
The Tennessean reports that the new federal courthouse in Nashville will be named for Senator Frist.
The same Senator Frist who has repeated tried to keep medical malpractice victims from being able to access to the civil justice system.
The same Senator Frist who, after diagnosising Terry Schaivo via videotape, gave the federal courts jurisdiction over a lawsuit brought by her parents (the so-called Palm Sunday Compromise).