Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

The Insurance Commissioner from the State of Washington has issued a report that examines whether or not there is a medical malpractice insurance crisis in the state.

Rather than relying on simple statements from doctors and their insurers the Insurance Commissioner did a closed claim study covering about 90% of the physicians from the state. The report shows that the number of $1,000,000+ verdicts or settlements is relatively flat and that there were only 50 verdicts for the plaintiff in the 10 – year period covered by the study. Seventy-three percent of the claimants recovered nothing.

This data, not dissimilar from information received from the a recent Texas study, adds further support for the notion that rising medical malpractice insurance rates are out of control or that they are caused by a defect in the jury system that will be fixed by caps on damages.

Sorry for the lack of a post yesterday; I am at a conference in Florida and the day was a little hectic.

I didn’t write the Trial Lawyer’s Prayer, but I wish I had. Read more of Evan Schaeffer’s stuff by clicking here.

Trial Lawyer’s Prayer, by Evan Schaeffer

The ABA is hosting a 90-minute teleconference and live audio webcast on how to unearth fact information on the Internet.

Carole Levitt and Mark Rosch, authors of the ABA’s The Lawyer’s Guide to Fact Finding on the Internet will be the speakers. They will address issues like locating public records, locating background information on people and companies, and effective search techniques.

The seminar will take place on April 14, 2005 from 12:30 to 2:00 Eastern time. Call 800.285.2221 weekdays from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Eastern time to register. The program is eligible for 1.5 hours of CLE credit. Click here for more information.

Many of us have attempted to use police officers as expert witnesses at trial. We have also had them used against us.

The Delaware Supreme Court has recently ruled that it was reversible error for a trial judge to permit a police officer to testify to the “primary contributing cause” when the police officer was not qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction. The decision in Lagola v. Thomas may be read by clicking here.

Testimony by police officers in traffic wreck cases often carries substantial weight. This decision may be of assistance to you in your attempt to exclude the opinion testimony of a police officer.

David Swanner, a lawyer in South Carolina, has a blog focused on the use of legal technology by trial lawyers. David’s blog has a lot of good information on Powerpoint, yet another great weapon that we can use when we go into battle.

David also has a guest post entitled “Twelve Ways Technology Can Make You a Better Trial Lawyer” that he made to another blog. It is filled with good ideas.

All of this demonstrates why technology and the Internet is changing law practice as we know it. When small firm lawyers are ready to share their ideas and invest in appropriate technology, the advantage that large firms have historically had dwindles.

A study from Texas has determined that the medical malpractice “crisis” behind the push for restrictions on the rights of patients is phony, which is no news to anyone who understands the issue.

“We find no evidence of the medical malpractice crisis that produced headlines over the last several years and led to legal reform in Texas and other states,” said the study, conducted by law professors at the University of Texas, University of Illinois and Columbia University law schools.

The article tells us that “‘only a few states have comprehensive insurance databases like that of Texas,’ said David Hyman, one of the study authors, ‘but similar studies elsewhere have found nothing to indicate a link between litigation and rising medical costs.'”

The Illinois Court of Appeals has ruled that surveillance videos made of a plaintiff in a personal injury suit are disoverable.

In Shields v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Co. defendant argued that the films were protected under the work product doctrine. The appellate court followed the majority rule and held that the plaintiff was entitled to the videos. The court stated that “surveillance videos contain substantive evidence concerning the extent of a plaintiff’s injuries, and they do not reveal mental processes, opinions or other conceptual data. Thus, surveillance videotapes do not count as work product.” Read the opinion by clicking here.

It is important to warn your clients of the risk of surveillance videos. We tell our clients about the risk not because we want them to restrict their activities in public places but because we want to encourage them to accurately remember the activities they engage in so that they will not be impeached on video. Clients should also be cautioned about the difference between the activities they “can’t do” as a result of their injuiries versus the activities they do less frequently or do with pain they did not experience before the injury. An understanding of the difference in degree of these limitations will reduce the likelihood of successful impeachment of your client, by video or otherwise.

Most of us have been there. You are at trial. The jury is in the box. Things have gone poorly. Your client, the plaintiff, was late, and showed up dressed in a pink oxford shirt and saddle shoes. (Your mistake, by the way. You told him to dress like he was going to church.) His wife, who has the disposition of a rattlesnake with a fresh boot print on its back, does not bother to hide her distaste for the proceedings, you or her husband.

The jury consists of twelve stone-faced people who all live or who aspire to live in 37027 (Brentwood), each of whom has the compassion of an investment banker (and, indeed, two of them are). These folks watch Fox News, listen to Rush Limbaugh, and believe that, had the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal been born a few centuries earlier, they would have been amongst the contributors to the Good Book. They each think that “damn Democrat” is one word and that the only human being lower than your client is you, his pond-scum sucking trial lawyer.

The defendant, the minister for the largest church in the community, happened to run a stop sign on the way to visit a parishioner in a local hospital. His co-defendant is his church, the largest church in the community, the supplier of his 1995 Chevy Corsica and the immediate employer whose interest he was advancing on the day in question (there being substantial difficulty getting service of process on the ultimate Master). The good reverend is a gentle, kind-faced man of God who may well have ousted Charlton Heston for the lead in “The Ten Commandments,” had he not been hospitalized for diphtheria contracted while doing missionary work in Africa at the time of the casting call. His wife, who stands dutifully by his side at every break, looks like Aunt Bea in her church clothes.

The House of Representatives has just passed the “Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.” The Senate passed an identical bill last week. President Bush is expected to sign the bill into law tomorrow morning at 11:00 EST.

The new law gives federal courts jursidiction over most class actions when the amount in controversy equals or exceeds $5,000,000 and there are 100 or more plaintiffs.

Read the legislation by clicking here.