Thanks. That seems to be the general consensus, but surprised there's not an authoritative point on saying it clearly.
I understand creating vague language when the intent is to let a judge/jury decide the issue, but sometimes it's just fucking pointless.
..............i know. just a pain in the ass that almost all other docs will but orthos want a deposit.
you need to get on that LOP life. You can't even really do the deposit system here under our ethical standards.
Anyone know the law on the number of "therapy" cats a landlord has to allow? By federal law I have to accept one as long as the tenant gets a letter from a licensed psych. She just gave me a letter stating she needs 2. Wtf? My other tenant says she can have 4. The Google isn't helping. Lawyers, you're up.
I got a call from a potential client the other day about how his employer won't let him bring his therapy dog to work anymore. Apparently the guy was in a "wicked" bicycle accident and now has anxiety and the dog helps him cope. Ummmm no thanks, pal.
I wonder how high the abuse of "therapy" animals is now. It seems like i see multiple ones on every flight now and you see them everywhere. Maybe I'm just being a cynical asshole.
It's amazingly simple. They aren't required to be licensed or trained. It's a shame really. I have no recourse as a landlord. If the therapy animal is a bull mastiff, I have to allow it. If there is an attack, on my property, I can be sued. Don't know if they'd win, but I'm heavily insured, sor I'd definitely be named. Crock of shit.
Not that there's anything wrong with a bull mastiff. My Marly was one but I didn't make her stay in a 900 Sq. Ft. apartment either.
The cat tenant isn't my problem tenant. The motherfuckin cat horder is my problem. Decided to put her on a month to month to give her a chance to clean up. Bitch is disgusting.
client threatened suicide today, which I replied "do it." Not joking. if my office was a fictional tv show, people would say it's too unrealistic.
had the most contentious depo of my life yesterday. deposed two nurses in med mal case against doc and hospital. was accused of beating up on one after she started crying during the depo and we had to take a break. he basically said does it feel good to beat up on this poor girl i hope you feel good about yourself. she administered sedatives to my patient who died and i had her read the fda dosing material and she realized she screwed up how to give the sedatives. then another nurse was obviously lying during her deposition and i said i should have done this at the beginning but you are aware that you are under oath today. he buts in and says i'm harassing the witness under rule 30 and that i can be sanctioned and that if i finish asking that question he's going to end the depo. I said asked the question anyways and he didn't end the depo. He instructed his witnesses not to answer probably 20-30 of my questions. He would not let them answer questions regarding standard of care for nurses . my questions were basic rules of the road questions such as do you agree that a PACU nurse must ambu bag a patient when their respiratory rate drops to 6 breaths a minute. I've never heard of those questions being off limit. He also said all sorts of rude things like "the answer is the same as it was 3 hours ago when you asked that same question"
In Alabama most people always do standard stipulations which is reserving all objections for trial except for the form of the question. I'd be pissed if someone didn't answer 20-30 of my questions. Having said that, I objected to one question on Tuesday and told my client not to answer it. Also, I sent you an email yesterday. Or, I believe I sent you an email.
If somebody tells the client not to answer, I always ask them if they're asserting a privilege and then which privilege they're asserting. Privilege is pretty much the only justifiable basis for refusal to answer.
Client argues with girlfriend. Girl starts hitting him with cell phone. He punches her. At some point she jumps out of car. Client convinces her to get back in car. They forgive each other and have sex. Charges are battery, kidnapping, and sexual battery. Trial is next week, I'm thinking he needs to take the stand.
I also thoroughly enjoy asking the basis of their form objection when it becomes painfully obvious they are just objecting for the fuck of it.
I agree but I've met her and him. She is insane. She was doing crack that night. He said a crazy fight and then sex was the norm. Difference here is that when she got home, her sister noticed her eye bruised up. The cop listened to her story and essentially took it in the direction of "so it appears you got back in the car under duress. you had sex under duress." She hasn't really had a chance to back down.
i should have done that and now that i've looked at rule 30 i'm going to do it in the future because there are only like 3 grounds under which you can instruct not to answer-none of which apply here. I think if you do what you're saying on the record it helps set them up for a motion to compel and for sanctions to.
I should have done that more often as well. Although if I had done that we probably would've been there until next tuesday as he objected to every question in 6 hours of depositions and basically coached the deponents on each question. I'd ask a question and then he'd say object to the form then he'd coach them on what they could or could not answer on. I'd say "wait a minute what you've instructed her to answer on is not the subject matter for the question that I asked. I asked _________. " THen he'd say something in response. It was like pulling teeth. I don't know if this was because it was a medical malpractice death case and the risk management director of the hospital was in the room and he was trying to put on a big show or what. They had 3 lawyers and risk management in their corner and it was just me and the deceased ladies husband/my client on the other side.
yah the doc's lawyer (who wasn't even the one making most of the objections because these were depos of the hospital personnel and the hospital has their own lawyer seperate from the docs lawyer) made a long speaking objection. I said hold on, earlier in this deposition we stipulated that objections save to the form of the question are reserved for trial. are you going back on that stipulation? And he basically said he was going back on that stipulation. I have a 2L that was #1 in her class at Ole Miss law clerking for us for a few more weeks. I'm going to get her to write the best damn motion to compel and for sactions I can find. I also have motions from other lawyers and orders that I can work off of and have a really good seminar/outline for these types of motions from a STLA conference I went to a few years ago. I'm gonna go nuclear on this. I'm guessing this judge in Meridian isn't going to do anything for me but we'll see.
one of the nurses typical answers was I just can't answer that question. I'd say why can't you answer that question. Then her lawyer would but in. Then she'd say I just can't answer that question. That was in response to very important pertinent questions. Sometimes I'd just let that answer stand. Under the rules I can play her deposition for any reason not just to impeach her. My thought was this looks pretty bad that I'm asking this salient question and she's just saying I can't answer it. I'd rather just show that to the jury and let them so how full of it she is rather than pressing on.
Yeah, you can't instruct your client not to answer those questions. If they are important, move to compel and get your fees. He also shouldn't be giving speaking objections because it allows him to coach his witness. For example, "her answer is going to be the same as it was before" is a dog whistle to his like to be consistent.
client gets lumbar nerve block-procedure starts at 11:06AM ends at 11:10AM (she's given 10MG of versed and 200mcg of fentanyl for sedation). she's taken to the PACU and arrives at 11:13AM. Upon arrival she has a pulse of 44, respiratory rate of 4 , is pale, and cold to the touch. Some time later she goes into full cardiac arrest and goes into a vegatative state , she never regains consciousness and the family just ultimately takes her off the ventilator and she passes away. We allege that she was over sedated and that the PACU personnel failed to timely revive her (too slow to ambu bag her , too slow to adminster atropine and epinephrine, too slow to intubate her) and that she suffered anoxic brain injury because of the over sedation and slow response to revive. the PACU nurse made a detailed nursing note that has specific times. it says she arrives at 11:13 that the doctor that did the procedure (he's anesthesiologist and pain management doctor) is called at 11:15 at 11:20 it says he's there. At 11:20 it says she has no blood pressure. It says they didn't start CPR until 11:26AM. It says she wasnt intubated until 11:30AM. If you wait 13 minutes from when she had a HR of 44 and RR of 4 and 6 minutes from when she had no BP to start CPR-that's plenty of time to make her a vegetable from anoxic brain injury. Part of the problem I'm dealing with here is the doc claims that he got there immediately (unlike the nurses notes that says 5 minute gap from when he was called an when he arrived) and that they did CPR and all the necessary things immediately. He said the times on her nurses notes were bogus. So I took the depo of the PACU nurse yesterday and asked her about the times on her nurses notes. She said the times were approximate and that she was giving patient care and thus couldnt keep exact times. Thus basically they want us to throw out the timeline in the nurses notes. I was wanting to rely on that timeline because it proves how the anoxic brain injury occured. Also this client has a history of epilepsy and the doc is claiming that she had a spontaneous grand mal seizure as soon as he entered the PACU and that she immediately went into cardiac arrest. He says she arrested and suffered brain injury because of the seizure not because he oversedated her or waited too long to revive her. He also says she had seizures after they intubated her. The PACU nurse says the patient flexed her arms slowly but didn't describe it as a grand mal seizure.
While discussing the importance of having employees execute an updated NDA, an older lawyer I work closely with just told a client "this ain't poke-e-man, this is real important stuff."
i had a ten year attorney answer 'relevance' when i asked what the basis of his form objection was. i was just like uhhhhh you serious bro?
they are going to have problems regardless. The doctor's note states that they called the code at 11:33AM and that at that time they gave atropine and the sedative reversals and intubated. She arrived at 11:13AM. That means they waited 20 minutes to intubate. With the stats that she had upon arrival which were already really bad we can show anoxic brain injury. It's a fair question though. The docs testimony and the nurses testimony and the medical records all conflict each other in terms of when treatment was given and important events. Its part of an overall theme of sloppy work. Medical personnel should be precise not approximate and sloppy. To directly answer your question my experts will be able to say within a reasonable degree of medical probability the profound dose of sedatives caused irreversible anoxic brain injury. I mean they gave her a monstrous slug of sedatives and she went into total arrest in the PACU 20 minutes later and was rendered a vegetable. What do you think happened? Also I may argue that the nurses notes are precise even if she's trying to say they aren't. And let the jury decide whether they believe the convenient after the fact excuse of the defendants or do they believe the precise numbers written down on the nurses notes. If the defense could always rely on "the records that objectively prove we breached the standard of care should be disregarded and we actually did everything timely and perfect" then there would never be a plaintiffs verdict. That's just too convenient.
This damn case is in state court and low and behold we don't have the same rules regarding instructing the witness not to answer as we do in federal court. I don't know if the judge would look to the federal rules and law as authority or just say "hey we don't have that rule in state court so he's totally fine instructing the witness not to answer 30 times" Federal Rule 30 (2) addresses the grounds for instructing a witness not to answer. It does not say you can instruct a witness not to answer because you think the question is not within the scope of discovery which is basically what opposing counsel in this case says. The grounds for instructing a witness not to answer are much more narrow than that. The rule says you can instruct the witness not to answer: (1) only when necessary to preserve a privilege (2) to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under rule 30(d)(3) Rule 30 (d)(3) says: Motion to terminate or limit Grounds: At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. The motion may be filed in the court where the action is pending or the depositing is being taken. If the objecting deponent or party so demands, the deposition must be suspended for the time necessary to obtain an order.
On the flip side, if you ask me for the basis for my objection I am sure as hell going to use the opportunity to make a speaking objection.
that's just a freaking terrible argument to make. likely only lived a minute burning alive that's only worth 50k. who says that to themselves in preparing for trial and then says "yep that's a great argument I'll go with that"
That had to have been something that popped into his head spontaneously and he didn't even stop to think what he was saying. There's no way a competent attorney makes that argument after deliberating on it.
posting this here for he hell of it: Here is a preview of the June 2016 issue of the Miss. Jury Verdict Reporter: $31,095,000 verdict- Rankin County car wreck case (5/17/16); $6,228,000 verdict- Harrison County eminent domain case (5/20/16); $100,000 settlement- Lafayette County medical malpractice case (5/28/15); $10,000 verdict- Hinds County car wreck case (5/26/16); $10,000 verdict- DeSoto County car wreck case (3/14/16); $8,888 combined verdict- DeSoto County car wreck case- 2 plaintiffs (2/22/16); defense verdict- Hattiesburg federal court car wreck case (5/19/16); and defense verdict- Hattiesburg federal court insurance coverage dispute (12/2/15). My Take: A big month for the plaintiffs–only two defense verdicts. The defendant in the Rankin County car wreck case was pro se. I think we all know what that means. In any event, take that one with a grain of salt. Big win for Sheldon Alston and Karen Howell at Brunini in the eminent domain case.
I think it's interesting to see actual modern jury verdicts. If someone posted some from Alabama or Michigan I'd think it's interesting.
$500,000 for non economic damages. I can also get the medical bills and future lost wages. In this case if I get a verdict I should cap out the $500,000 for non economic damages, she has like $300,000 in medical bills that should flow through the estate and I'd hope I could get them reduced so their could be a profit, and then she had maybe $500,000 in future lost wages. So $1.3M. Although I'll say it's completely dumb that if a 18 wheeler kills someone you can get 1M in non economic damages but I can only get $500,000 in non economic damages if a doctor kills someone. Doctors aren't leaving this state because of malpractice lawsuits. Doctors insurance premiums and patients insurance premiums aren't going up because of malpractice lawsuits. But the chamber of commerce and the AMA convinced everyone that they were so tort reform capped out non economics at low numbers. Do you think the pain and suffering someone goes through because a hospital is slow and lazy and killed their wife is really worth only $500,000?
Stepping out of an attorney mindset, I think that Hospitals have it rough. They are going to make mistakes. People are going to die. If you can sue me for 10 million dollars every time a mistake is fatal then fuck it, I'm not going to medical school. with that said 500k for a life is funny as well. it's obviously a cap with the defendant in mind, not the victim.