The Spring 2012 edition of FDCC Quarterly has an article titled "Best Practice for Defense of Corporate Depositions." The article is written by a Senior General Attorney for BNSF Railway Company, Mr. Thomas R. Jayne.
Those of us who are usually take depositions of corporate representatives will find the thought process of corporate defense counsel interesting and helpful.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that functional magnetic resonance imaging cannot be used in a criminal case to prove that the defendant’s denials of wrongdoing were true.
Defendant wanted to introduce evidence of the fMRI to prove that he was telling the truth in his criminal trial and that did not intentionally violate the law. In an issue of first impression, the court of appeals affirmed the exclusion of the evidence. The court said
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the fMRI evidence pursuant to Rule 403 in light of (1) the questions surrounding the reliability of fMRI lie detection tests in general and as performed on [defendant] Dr. Semrau, (2) the failure to give the prosecution an opportunity to participate in the testing, and (3) the test result’s inability to corroborate Dr. Semrau’s answers as to the particular offenses for which he was charged.
Almost four years ago Tennessee adopted a requirement lawyers filing medical malpractice (now called health care liability) lawsuits must file a "certificate of good faith." Under the current version of the statute the certificate must be filed with the complaint.
The Tennessee pre-suit notice statute can be found at T.C.A. Section 29-26-122. I wrote an article about the most recent version of the statute for the Tennessee Bar Journal; the article is titled "Med Mal Makeover: The New Medical Malpractice Notice and Certificate of Good Faith Statute."
I have assembled a list of the cases that discussed the certificate of good faith requirement. One of the cases is pending before the Tennessee Supreme Court and an opinion is expected in the next few weeks.
Almost four years ago Tennessee adopted a requirement that health care provides were entitled to receive advance notice of the filing of Tennessee medical malpractice (now call "health care liability) lawsuits. Under the current version of the statute, notice must be given in the manner proscribed by statute before the expiration of the statute of limitations. Exceptions are granted only for extraordinary cause. Giving appropriate notice extends the statute of limitations and statute of repose by 120 days.
The Tennessee pre-suit notice statute can be found at T.C.A. Section 29-26-119. I wrote an article about the most recent version of the statute for the Tennessee Bar Journal; the article is titled "Med Mal Makeover: The New Medical Malpractice Notice and Certificate of Good Faith Statute."
I have assembled a list of the cases that discussed the pre-suit notice requirement. Here are the two cases currently pending before the Tennessee Supreme Court:
The Lexis website that contains the Tennessee Code that is available through the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts is not updated with 2012 legislative changes. This despite the fact that many of those changes went into effect July 1, 2012, or even earlier.
It appears that Westlaw has updated the Code.
Thus, lawyers are advised not to count on the Lexis website available through the AOC at this time.
As regular readers know, the Tennessee Bar Association has published a regular column in the Tennessee Bar Journal called "Day on Torts" for many years. I enjoy writing for these articles and am thankful for the many calls, letters and emails I have received over the years from my fellow lawyers thanking for me writing them.
The September 2012 edition of the publication includes my latest column, titled "Distribution of Net Proceeds in Tennessee Wrongful Death Cases." The article offers an analysis of Tennessee law on how statutory beneficiaries divide the net proceeds of wrongful death settlements and judgments.
I wrote this column after receipt of many calls from lawyers asking me questions on the subject. I hope that this work helps other lawyers serve their clients in Tennessee wrongful death cases.
I am fortunate to receive many calls on many types of cases, some of which fall outside of my normal practice area. i decided I would seek out a lawyer to whom I could associate on a particular type of case – this lawyer enjoyed a good reputation on cases of this type. I called him and had a general discussion about the type of calls I was getting and inquired whether he was interested in receiving some referrals.
He said he was, and we had a discussion about how we could work together to assist future clients. I had a good feeling about the potential of working together.
Then, I asked him to confirm that he carried legal malpractice insurance. He said he did not, I told him I could not sleep at night if I did not have legal malpractice insurance for our firm. He said that if he got sued and put in a position of probable financial loss he would file bankruptcy and avoid the loss.
The Federal Evidence Review Blog has been kind enough to let us know that the federal Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management ("CACM") has issued new proposed jury instructions on the use of social media by jurors.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a plaintiff’s verdict in a products liability case notwithstanding the defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff’s expert should have been excluded under Daubert.
In Lapsley v. Xtech, Inc., No. 11-3313 (7th Cir. July 27, 2012) Industrial grease was propelled in a jet with enough energy to penetrate and pass through the human body like a bullet. That jet hit and disabled plaintiff Leonard Lapsley. The jury found that the accident occurred because defendant defectively designed the piece of equipment that propelled the grease.
Defendant challenged the admissibility of plaintiff’s expert witness, arguing that he lacked a scientific basis for his testimony. The trial judge permitted the witness to testify, and the defendant challenged that ruling on appeal after a jury found it liable for Lapsley’s injuries.
Tennessee’s rules of civil procedure now permit the use of declarations in lieu of affidavits.
TRCP Rule 72 provides as follows:
Wherever these rules require or permit an affidavit or sworn declaration, an unsworn declaration made under penalty of perjury may be filed in lieu of an affidavit or sworn declaration. Such declaration must be signed and dated by the declarant and must state in substantially the following form: "I declare (or certify, verify or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct."
