Missed the first part but caught most of it. Think it was hard to follow the issues. The briefs are on the 9th Circuits public site and are worth the 20 minutes to read if anyone is interested. Think the EO will ultimately be upheld, but without application to legal permanent residents or visa holders who have already landed in the United Stated (and are either here now or seek to return).
Okay, isn't reckless disregard an element for punitive damages, too? Or, does the MTCA not allow for punitives?
Read the briefs and this is where I'm at. Think the due process argument wins on the blanket ban re permanent residents and visa holders. Everyone else I think is fucked.
so gorsuch worked for kellogg huber et al for 10 years in dc. i dont know shit about dc firms or big law but my friend that works in big law says its an elite small appellate boutique focused on the supreme court. not one of the big names but top shelf in its niche
Two more weeks left at my insurance defense firm Two interviews lined up in Seattle at the end of this month Spoiler with similar defense firms
Washington is, surprisingly, reciprocal with most every state if you've been practicing for over 3 years. I still have to get sworn in by a Wash judge, but as of last week I'm essentially admitted there.
just feel like moving to a cool city and have no connections /gf/wife in AL to weigh you down i suppose
Here's a legal position with us in Nashville that only requires 3-5 years experience instead of all the others that required like 7+ Staff Counsel Spoiler Staff Counsel-LEG00072 Description Responsibilities: Provides regulatory compliance and consumer protection-related guidance supporting internal clients on matters pertaining to insurance and service contract requirements, as well as compliance obligations and processes of the Company. Assists the Director, Regulatory Counsel with communication and implementation of compliance and consumer protection policies and processes. Accurately assesses and manages risk through knowledge of Asurion’s business and relevant legal issues. Act as a liaison and brokers creative solutions for relevant stakeholders. Develops thorough understanding of Asurion’s business, processes and goals. Implements various compliance practices through cross-functional training, creation of reference materials for internal knowledge transfer purposes and cultivation of relationships within Legal function and Asurion. Works with state regulators regarding regulatory matters including: form and rate filings; regulatory inquiries; audits to obtain approvals; and resolving complex compliance issues. Coaches and mentors other compliance staff members. Analyzes and stays current with state and federal laws, regulations for insurance, service warranty, and other products Asurion offers. Analyzes proposed industry legislation and the impact on Asurion products. Conducts legal research. Actively participates in operational understanding and implications of initiatives. Specific job requirements: J.D. from an ABA-accredited law school and admission to the bar 3-5+ years of relevant experience Experience in marketing, advertisement and consumer protection a plus Experience in regulated industries a plus Must demonstrate technical expertise, including the ability to define key issues, synthesize laws and regulations, and apply general knowledge in the context of the Asurion’s business practices. Skillfully prioritizes and executes with accuracy and precision, aiming for thoroughness and precision in critical work Demonstrates flexibility, composure, and nimble-thinking when business conditions or goals change Excellent written and verbal communication skills and the ability to work well with business colleagues, clients, and outside counsel Must possess strong judgment, confidence, collaborative problem solving skills, and ability to spot potential issues quickly Must be able to independently handle a variety and number of legal matters under supervision of more experienced legal counsel Highly organized and digs for detailed understanding to thoroughly understand the issue and the possible implications of legal guidance Occasional travel
was thinking about filing an inclusive motion in limine for a car wreck trial i have coming up in April. will be my first , first chair jury trial by the way. i wanted to file the MIL re my physics expert who is gonna testify re forces of impact etc to overcome the MIST defense. The purpose of it would be to have the judge go ahead and say that she can testify. they haven't filed a daubert motion. i just don't think it helps if they make an oral motion to disqualify her at trial in front of the jury. if the court goes ahead and says that she can testify to her opinions then i think that helps me. thoughts?
meds are like $12k. damages are permanent exacerbation of preexisting cervical stenosis. they offered $500.
I've got to file suit in this case where kid is raped by other kid at catholic school. i'm going to name the catholic diocese of biloxi as a defendant but I'm not sure under what theory they would be liable. the school is vicariously liable for the employee that negligently supervised and allowed it to happen. and i guess the catholic school where it happened was a subdivision of the diocese. so the diocese is ultimately responsible. i've just got to find a better way to articulate that.
you hired a physics expert on a case with 12k meds? Did the defense hire an expert to try to bitch about the severity of impact, or did you do this on your own? I'm far from knowing dick about trying cases, but seems to me that if the defense didn't hire an expert then they are shit out of luck about arguing the severity of the impact. And you trying to bring your expert in on it probably hurts you more than it helps you.
well i guess you are smarter than a bunch of expert trial lawyers that i got that idea from. i mean you can argue it either way. its a high school teacher that I paid $50 an hour. got the idea from david ball on damages. local expert , some of the ppls kid may have been taught by her. they don't neeed an expert to argue MIST. they basically downplay the severity of the wreck . oh there wasn't much property damage. it was only soft tissue etc etc. expert shows that a ton of force goes into a mist wreck. and this wreck was actually like 15mph or 30mph depending on who you believe. i just felt like using her. it's an experiment. could go multiple directions.
Got an order denying class certification in a class action case we are defending. The judge essentially copied every argument out of my brief.
I sued a defendant in state court and attached requests for admission. The defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity and attached the RFAs to the removal documents, but never answered the RFAs. Are they now deemed admitted in federal court?
Other than Sammy Meatballs , who else is licensed in FL and/or somewhat familiar with PIP / Sec. 627.737?
You'll have a better chance getting them deemed admitted in federal court, but the judge still may not do it. 36(a)(3) allows them to order an extension and, unless it's going to delay discovery, they'll often do it to keep from having a lawyer commit malpractice.
The "permanency" threshold under 627.737---if that is NOT met, then it only operates as a bar to non-economic damages, correct? Basically, in order to be awarded pain and suffering, mental anguish, etc., you have to satisfy the "permanency threshold" of the statute, correct?
if you really want them to be deemed admitted you need to send the other attorney like 3-4 letters telling him he is past the deadline to respond to the RFA. also it's sort of common courtesy to send a letter and be like hey bro respond to discovery.
we had a $500k case get summary judgment in our favor because opposing party did not respond to RFAs and we collected on it
In short yes Assuming the defendant carried the statutorily required coverage on their policy then an injured plaintiff has to meet threshold in order to recover non economics
I read an order from a Kansas DC saying they're void until the scheduling conference is approved, but they're deemed served once it is approved, and then you have 30 days after that to answer or they're deemed admitted.
I don't really care whether they're admitted or not, but it will just beef up our MSJ to say they haven't been denied
Random comment- downside to working in-house, having to read through and mark-up user instructions/manuals. This is tedious af. 3 25+ manuals by COB today. Thrilled with the head's up and planning ahead by the business.
have yall ever seen a court say a pain management doc can't give an opinion on medical causation for a back injury e.g. that is exclusively in the realm of a neuro/ortho?
in cases where you have someone treating beyond the expert designation deadline do you just supplement medical records as you get them and supplement designations to include whatever new findings the docs have. techinically a defense lawyer could say all that treatment was beyond the deadline and not admissible. its all expert testimony. was thinking about filing a motion with the court to have a hearing and see how they wanted to handle it
I've tried it before, but I was unsuccessful. I have been successful in having a chiropractor's causation testimony left out, though. I think you'd be fine supplementing as you go, but the hearing and an order clarifying the court's position wouldn't hurt.
in an upcoming trial i've spoken with the neuro but he moved to atlanta. he'll give me causation but his depo is gonna probably be telephonic or remote video and just a pain. the pain management doc lives here and will give me causation. i was thinking about just taking the pain management docs depo because he is willing to go out more on a limb for my client. but out of an abundance of caution i guess i'm gonna take the neuros depo and the pain docs depo and get causation from both of them. i actually had a defense lawyer argue yesterday in the depo of my life care planner in a different case that ortho opinions are more reliable than pain management doc opinions.
I think the pain doctor can give you causation of the symptoms he's treating. As a defense lawyer, I'd still undermine his qualifications and paint him as overreaching. They've almost never seen long-term prior records and just rely on the referral, so crossing them can be a blast.
seems like every defense lawyer also points out that the treating doc doesnt really know the wreck caused the injury he's just going by the patients subjective complaints of pain as they are temporally related to the subject incident.
do yall think a life care planner has to speak with the doc or if i depose the doc and ask him all the same stuff a life care planner would ask him and then give that to life care planner that's good enough? its effectively the same thing. i did the latter in a previous case that settled for a substantial amount. then OC gets on state defense lawyer list serve and gets that depo from defense lawyer from old case. then asks life care planner in present case depo if she would ever do one without talking to doc. in present case she spoke with doc. she says no i would always talk to doc. obviously he gonna use that to impeach on cross x. gonna file a MIL on it. not sure how damaging it is. can think of ways to neutralize it.
also i've heard from a defense and plaintiff lawyer recently that juries dont like life care plans. i always thought if you did a good job you could get jury to give you every penny of it.