How does SVMIC evaluate claims? Here is what they tell their insureds.
Notice Requirement in Slip and Fall Cases
In slip and fall cases in Tennessee, one must either prove that the defendant created the condition or knew or should have known about the condition. The latter may be proved by showing a pattern of conduct, a re-occurring incident, or a general or continuing condition indicating the dangerous condition’s existence. Blair v. West Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761 (Tenn. 2004)
But Alaska has a much more pro-plaintiff rule in grocery (and presumably all retail) store cases. Its Supreme Court recently ruled that "actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition is not an element of a prima facie case in an action against a grocery store owner in a slip-and-fall case."
Here is a brief summary of the Court’s ruling and rationale:
SVMIC Speaks on Effect of New Malpractice Legislation on Rates
SVMIC’s position on how the new statute making it more difficult to sue physicians will impact what doctors pay for medical malpractice insurance:
"Regarding the effect of this reform on your professional liability insurance, it will be difficult to quantify what, if any, rate changes are a direct result of the reform. A multitude of factors affect the filing of suits and awards in medical malpractice cases, therefore it may be a period of time before any effect will be realized. We congratulate the TMA on their accomplishment after many years of hard work for reform."
Is anyone surprised by this?
Back (Again)
Ok – I know I have not been posting lately. I spent 8 days in Canada fishing and returned on Saturday night.
I am now back to work and will be back on a normal blogging pattern this week.
Thanks for coming back to the site.
A New Attack on the Contigious State and Locality Rule?
The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled unconstitutional a state statute that imposed certain requirements on expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases. The statute required that experts be board certified in the same specialty as the defendant and mandated that the expert have practiced (or taught) that same specialty for the year prior to their testimony.
The Court ruled that it was the job of the courts to make rules relative to matters of procedure and that the legislature could not infringe on the role of the courts.
The case is Seisinger v. Siebel, No 1 CA-CV 07-0266 (AZ. Ct. App. June 17, 2008). Read it here.
Flax Opinion Released
The Tennessee Supreme Court has released the opinion in Flax. Stated briefly, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the NIED claim and re-instated the remitted punitive damages for the wrongful death claim.
For the first time in my memory, the TSC released 4 opinions on the case. Get the links to all of the opinions here. Justice Holder wrote the majority opinion.
Sexual Misconduct Claims Against Therapists
Did you know that Tennessee has a specific statute addressing sex abuse claims against therapists?
The "Therapist Sexual Misconduct Victims Compensation Act" is set forth in T.C.A. Sec. 29-26-201 et seq. A "therapist" is defined as "any person who performs therapy regardless of whether the person is licensed by the state." "Therapy" is also a defined term, and includes marital counseling, substance abuse treatment, family counseling, and other treatment. The statute of limitations is the most generous of any personal injury claim in Tennessee.
Saying It Don’t Make It So
Many Americans are frustrated by the our health care system but quickly declare it to be the best in the world.
A new study challenges that belief, pointing out that "the U.S. spends twice per capita what other major industrialized countries spend on health care, and costs continue to rise faster than income" and yet "the U.S. achieves an overall score of 65 out of a possible 100 when comparing national averages with U.S. and international performance benchmarks."
This is an excerpt from the executive summary of the report in the issue of quality:
When the Defendant Admits Liability
Smart defense counsel admit liability in cases where liability cannot seriously be questioned.
What will defense counsel do to hold the damages number down? Read about the strategy of one defense lawyer in this article – Defending the Damages-Only Case. The article is published in the Winter 2008 edition of Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel Quarterly and was written by Mercer K. Clarke.
Ohio Supreme Court Addresses Damages Issue in Legal Malpractice Cases
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff in a legal malpractice case must prove the collectibility of damages in "the case within the case" to recover them from a negligent lawyer. In doing so, it specifically rejected the notion that the defendant lawyer must prove the lack of collectibility as an affirmative defense.
Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota have a similar rule. I think Tennessee does, too, but there is one case that suggests to the contrary.
For my previous posts on this subject go here.