This post is a first in a series of posts that will address new laws passed by the 106th General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Bredesen. The posts will run two or three days per week over the next several weeks.
The first post is a change to the Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967. The bill will be of interest to any one who does medical malpractice or any other area of health care law.
Here is a summary of the legislation:
Texting while driving is now illegal in Tennessee, and a study from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute reaffirms why the law is necessary.
For truck drivers, the risk of a crash or near-crash event increases by a 23.2 times as compared with non-distracted driving.
Read the entire study here.
Deaths on Tennessee roads continued to decrease in 2008. A total of 1035 people were killed on Tennessee roads in 2008, down from 1211 in 2007and 1339 in 2004. Nationally, 37,261 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2008.
Tennessee deaths were 16.55 per 100,000 of population, over 33% higher than the national average of 12.25 deaths per 100,000 citizens.
Of the 1035 Tennessee deaths, 605 involved single vehicle crashes. A total of 95 of the deaths involved at least one large truck.
Not in the Seventh Circuit, it doesn’t. In Bakery Machinery & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., No 08-1967 (7th Cir. June 29, 2009) the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit refused to vacate a default judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).
The Court ruled as follows:
[W]e drew a clear line in United States v. 7108 West Grand Avenue, 15 F.3d 632, 634 (7th Cir. 1994) when we said that “[t]he clients are principals, the attorney is an agent, and under the law of agency the principal is bound by his chosen agent’s deeds.” The rule is that all of the attorney’s misconduct (except in the cases where the act is outside the scope of employment or in cases of excusable neglect) becomes the problem of the client. See id. A lawyer who inexcusably neglects his client’s obligations does not present exceptional circumstances. See Williams, 890 F.2d at 996. Hinterlong’s actions, even with BMF’s purported diligence, do not fall within the exceptions to the rule and do not rise to the level of ‘exceptional’ to warrant such ‘extraordinary’ relief.
The trial of virtually every personal injury or wrongful death case involves the use of one or more photographs.
The recent decision in Zerega Ave. Realty Corp. v. Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC, __ F.3d __ (2d Cir. July 6, 2009) (No. 08-0639-CV) reminds us that the failure to lay a proper foundation will result in exclusion of photographs at trial. The opinion reminds us that the "standard for admissibility of photographs requires the witness to recognize and identify the object depicted and testify that the photograph is a fair representation of what it purports to portray." The witness attempting to authenticate the photographs identified the object but was not asked whether the photograph was a fair and accurate representation of the object. The exclusion of the photograph was affirmed on appeal.
Recall that "[t]he witness qualifying a photograph … does not need to be the photographer or see the picture taken. It is only necessary that he recognize and identify the object depicted and testify that the photograph fairly and correctly represents it.” Kleveland v. United States, 345 F.2d 134, 137 (2d Cir. 1965)
I have released three prior posts on the financial condition of State Volunteer Mutual Insurance Company – click here to read them: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.
The bottom line is that conservative financial management at SVMIC has permitted the company to accumulate a quarter of a billion dollars in net worth, even as the number of policyholders has declined 4% of the last year.
So how is that impacting rates?
Penny White, Joe Riley and I are on the road again this Fall for the 2009 Justice Programs seminars. This two-day, 15-hour is designed for Tennessee lawyers who do civil litigation.
We will be in Nashville November 19 and 20, Chattanooga on December 3 and 4, Memphis on December 10 and 11, and Knoxville on December 17 and 18.
Learn more about the program here. Register here.
The agent who sells us our professional liability insurance coverage sent me this last Wednesday:
On August 1, 2009, new federal regulations enforced by the FTC will go into effect; the so-called Red Flag rules, which require businesses, including lawyers and law firms, to take pro-active measures to detect and prevent identity theft. While implementation of these rules has now twice been postponed, (and some legal professional organizations are protesting their application to lawyers), it is important for lawyers to review them and plan for compliance. Although the FTC does not appear to specify final penalty amounts for non-compliance, it is clear that violators can be subject to significant civil penalties – making this information especially important for anyone who handles personal identity information of clients or customers.
Here is a link to the FTC website where the rules are discussed.
Last Friday a Memphis jury awarded almost $24M to a woman and her husband in a civil suit arising out of what the jury found to be medical negligence arising from the failure to promptly diagnose breast cancer. The woman is in the last weeks of her shortened life.
It is my understanding that the defendant did not make a settlement offer and in fact that the doctor refused to authorize any offer. I do not know if this is correct. I do not know if the case could have been settled. I do know it is hard to make progress on settlement negotiations if one side or the other refuses to discuss settlement.
Many insurance companies that provide professional liability coverage to physicians give the physician the right to refuse to consent to any settlement. This is unlike traditional liability insurance coverage, where the insured may be given the opportunity to voice an opinion on settlement but rarely has any power to block a settlement within policy limits.
The American Conservative Union, the nation’s oldest conservative lobbying organization, has firmly held core beliefs. Those core beliefs are apparently for sale to the highest bidder, even if the highest bidder is on the opposite side of the issue than the other potential bidder.
Credibility free-fall.
