seems like most states are pretty lenient about this sort of thing. A lot see it as a "civic duty" but don't necessarily criminalize the failure to fulfill it. There's a plausible argument you never received it, too
South Alabama. Our hours are tiered and directly tied to our bonus. If you bill 2,000 hours you get the 'base,' if you bill 2,100 = base + $1,000, bill 2,200 = base + $2,000. Additionally, we get $50 for every individual hour you bill more than last year. It's a really goofy system that I don't think will last very long.
i get a base salary plus 5% of everything i make if i don't bring the client in myself and 10% if i do bring them in
That's $10 an hour for bonus time. That blows. The "more than last year" part is baller as fuck, though. Ours is based on revenue production, but it's pretty much arbitrary as far as I can tell.
wreck in mississippi, alabama UM policy, does alabama UM law apply or Mississippi? I would think anything procedural such as SOL is governed by MS law but substantive issues such as set offs etc would be governed by AL law. what a pain in the ass
Our base bonus is pretty high, so it's hard to complain, but yea, there's very little incentive to work an extra 100 hours for just $1,000. I think that's why they instituted the 'more than last year' rule--they had everyone (not surprisingly) billing exactly 2,100 or 2,201. However, that even leads to absurd results. We had some people that billed 2-300 hours more than last year, and they were handing out $10-15K checks during bonus time. At the same time, that also encourages that same person to do the bare minimum (2,000) the following year, and then try and kill it by 2-300 the following year. I don't think it will last very long, very easy to manipulate. For associates, ours is based on billed hours rather than money brought in (which is dumb as shit). However, we have to hit certain bench marks to make partner (and then equity partner) and that is solely determined by how much revenue you bring in.
The UM policy will have a governing law provision. It's almost certainly going to be Alabama substantive law. Typically SOL is a substantive issue, btw.
It's possible you had jury duty that day but no jury was actually called, this happens here a lot. There should be a number for the Office of the Jury Commissioner to call.
I'm sure that's nice, but my comp and career development is basically dependent on hours (if I was at 1550 it'd mean someone didn't like my work and I'd probably get told to leave). Quite a few friends at my firm and others won't hit 2k and won't get bonuses. Whatever I end up at isn't ideal, but it's better than the alternative.
Yep. Understand. We are in the process of attempting to remodel our compensation system. It's such a fucking pain in the ass even at a firm our size (approximately 80). Note, my billings are light because I'm originating a good deal of work now and working on a lot of nonbillable shit. My ass is still here a ton.
ended up reducing my attorneys fees equivalent to paying the difference in his car insurance for a year to get him to sign off. fuck me.
i have this case where this dentist broke a needle off in a 5 year old kids mouth doing a simple procedure. they've gone all over the place trying to get it out and one surgeon even attempted surgery to get it out and couldnj't. now 2 years later it's still in there. my dental expert says they'll have to monitor it with xrays and that it may need to come out. i was thinking about putting together a future meds /lifecare plan outline with my standard lifecare planner. but i don't have treating docs that say that's what he'll need. in fact he can't really get anyone to monitor it because i think they're afraid of liability issues. so my question is do you think the lifecare planner can base future medicals on what my dentist expert says he'll likely need. my dentist expert hasn't examined the patient in person and is basing this off review of records and training experience etc. My opinion is that wouldn't fly, your lifecare planner needs input from treating docs
I don't understand that. You already settled with the tortfeasor when the UIM carrier offered limits? And he didn't want to settle with the UIM because his rates were going up? His rates go up either way, and there's only one way he gets any money, and that's by settling with the UIM carrier for limits. What is his leverage there, other than making you cover that difference?
what's the best way to get in the projected cost of future medicals then? i could just not put them in , i dont think they're going to end up being that much. my life care planner does it on the cheap if that's one of the reasons you're saying not to
I'd probably punt on future meds and focus on pain/suffering of the necessary future procedures through the Doctor. Generally, I think life care planners hurt more than they help unless you've got a major spinal cord/head injury.
Part of the thing I'm grappling with here is damages. The actual procedure where they were working on his tooth seemed pretty dang painful. He was writhing, screaming, and crying. They decided they had to strap him down to this device called a papoose board. My expert says they didn't get proper informed consent from the mom about this. Then after strapping him down they claim they had 3 techs holding him down. Then the doctor tries to numb him with a needle but it predictably breaks and lodges in his mouth. The doc said it broke because he was moving around. The kid says that it was a little painful but makes it sound like the next day he was getting better and it wasn't that bad. Also you have to remember the kid was like 5 and he's like 7 now-so you don't remember that much when you're that young. He said that after the surgery where they tried to remove it that it was painful and swollen but that went away after a few days. He says it doesn't bother him that much now. It actually seems like the biggest problem is they can't get a doc to monitor it or potentially take it out-all the docs are worried about liability. So the kid and his mom have been to probably 6 different oral surgeons all over the states of mississippi and georgia. I think they should be compensated for the inconvenience of all that. Also his mom went MIA back in like 2013 before this case, her family couldn't find her, then she sent a text saying she was going to kill herself and all her kids including my minor client, then DHS got involved and I think she got arrested. There was an article in a newspaper about it. I didn't know any of this until the deposition of the mom. Awesome surprise for me.
Yeah, that is a tough situation. And fuck the doctors saying they're "worried about liability." That's horseshit.
are you saying the whole case or the future medicals/life care plan. yall already convinced me re that. i'm happy not to do a life care plan , less expert designations and trouble
to be fair no doc has actually said that, that's just what I'm guessing. They moved to georgia about a year ago and they've been to I think 3 oral surgeons and dentist offices and asked to have it monitored because it can migrate and all of them declined or made up some excuse for not doing that. So I'm guessing they don't want to get involved because if they miss something they could be liable-idk. he has a doc that will clean his teeth and what not but no one will agree to do imaging and monitor the needle and advise him on that. also every doc except this orgal surgeon at university medical in jackson has refused to attempt to get the needle out -saying it's beyond their capabilities. the doc at UMMC used advanced imaging, seems to me something like fluorscopy, to try to remove the needle and failed. I mean talk about a pain in the ass. I never viewed this as a monster case but when I tell ppl the story they grimace-no one likes the idea of a needle breaking off in their mouths. And this little black kid is one of the cutest kids you'll see-if he goes in front of the jury he'll get some points.
and to make matters more complicated the defendant dentist died like 2 years ago after the procedure. so i had to open his estate as a creditor and sue it. so i'll have to file a MIL re that.
i should have at least some sort of xray. it's a fair question i haven't thought of. he still gets xrays i'm assuming-he still gets regular dental work done which includes x rays. i'm not exactly sure what constitutes "monitoring the location of the needle and possible migration" -i guess that would take a doc specifically review imaging and advising client and his mother whether the needle has changed positions, whether said migration poses and potential risk or threat and needs to be removed, etc. noone has agreed to that. i'll have the records to prove it's still in there. apparently these cases aren't uncommon. it's an inferior alveolar block. i've seen several cases like this in mississippi-seems like i've seen mostly defense verdicts
941Gator and any other criminal defense people in florida Is there any recourse besides appeal if you get railroaded on a williams rule motion?
In trial right now. Remind me to listen to all jail audio calls listed in discovery before putting a witness on. Even 951 calls at 15 minutes each :(
Not that I'm aware of. Note: If the attorney of record didn't object you could tell the defendant to file a 3.850 against his attorney.
Does anyone know of a good resource for bankruptcy and insurance (i.e., bankruptcy's effect on insurance - not two separate topics)? Seems like it's a wasteland. Haven't been able to find much. ALDOI and case law are lacking.
Would have been nice of the State to say hey, this is what we're going to play if you put this witness on. To their defense, they weren't sure if we were or weren't.
Wes Tegg you got me to thinking re SOL and procedural v substantive cause I thought it was procedural in MS "The traditional rule in Mississippi has been that statutes of limitations are a matter of procedural rather than substantive law.1 Thus characterized under the substance/procedure distinction, Mississippi courts generally applied Mississippi's statute of limitations as procedural law, even in cases where the law of another state controlled the issues of substantive law.2 This creates an opportunity for forum shopping. Prior to 1989, Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49 provided a six-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs with claims untimely under the law of another state could commence their actions in Mississippi's courts to take advantage of the long statute of limitations if the defendants in such actions, mostly corporations, were subject to personal jurisdiction in Mississippi courts. In such cases, the Mississippi court would use the center of gravity approach to apply foreign law to the substantive claim, but, as noted, would generally apply Mississippi's own statute of limitation.3 The traditional rule raised fairness concerns for defendants who were brought into Mississippi courts for the sole purpose of shopping for a longer period of limitations. One mechanism to circumvent Mississippi's statute of limitations was characterization. If a foreign statute of limitation could be characterized as substantive, that foreign statute of limitations could be applied under the center of gravity approach. A statute of limitations was characterized as substantive if it limited the nature of the right, as opposed to merely affecting the nature of the remedy. This adjudication by characterization met the defendants' fairness concerns.4"