Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Mass tort litigation provides ample opportunity for filing spurious claims. Last November, a Philadelphia federal judge sharply criticized two small New York plaintiffs' firms for allegedly having submitted dubious claims to a fen-phen diet pill settlement trust. U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that 78 claimants did not, in fact, show evidence of heart valve damage, notwithstanding diagnoses to that effect by two physicians retained by the firms. One of those physicians had been paid $725,000 to interpret 725 echocardiograms, while the other was getting a contingent $1500 bonus for each diagnosed claim that was paid by the trust, the judge found.
<i>This is the second of a two-part article. Part one appeared in last month's issue.</i> The first part of this two-part article explored the development of the standards for admission of expert testimony under <i>Daubert</i>, and discussed strategies and tactics for dealing with them. The conclusion addresses tactics for use while deposing an expert, briefing a <i>Daubert</i> motion, and conducting a hearing on the motion.
Highlights of the latest intellectual property cases from around the country.
Tort reform continues to be a controversial topic. California has placed a cap on damages. At press time, New York was considering similar legislation. Doctors in several states have conducted "strikes" to protest the amount of their malpractice premiums and to urge tort reform in their states. This article describes recent legislation in Mississippi — in order to alert readers to the trend and illustrate one state's efforts to deal with the problem of astronomic verdicts by sympathetic juries.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that interest on non-dischargeable child support obligations is also not dischargeable, and continues to accrue after a Chapter 13 petition is filed. In so ruling, the court affirmed decisions by the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Features
Undoubtedly, mental health experts can play a key role in determining custody issues in the context of a divorce — if they are chosen carefully and then well prepared by the matrimonial attorney. Last month, part one of this article discussed some of the problems that may arise between mental health experts and attorneys due to differences regarding ethics, money and time commitments, and offered some solutions. This article focuses on preparing the custody expert for trial.
In contemporary American society, a college education is increasingly being seen as necessary to maintaining a decent standard of living. While many parents assume some responsibility for contributing to their child's post-secondary educational expenses, the situation for divorced parents is more complex. This article discusses several points related to this issue.
Features
There are several basic tools or road maps that can be applied to guide divorce lawyers in effectively organizing and presenting their cases. An immediately effective tool, so obvious but also often forgotten, is comprised of the factors that are contained within a given jurisdiction's statutes and rules. Regardless of jurisdiction and whether contained in rule or statute, there are always factors that are to be considered before any court can make its determinations. All too often, however, these factors are ignored or at least not presented in the most coherent manner possible. If we accept as an initial premise that the family courts, regardless of jurisdiction and vicinage, recognize that these standards and rules need to be considered, we should, as an important part of our testimonial or briefing process, lay out the standard and rule and apply the facts of our cases to the criteria in the most simplistic and straightforward manner.
When individuals are not considered to be employees, employers are often insulated from various discrimination suits. While this is not the main reason an employer hires contingent workers, it can be an added benefit. However, just as it is important to classify individuals properly for benefit and tax purposes, law firms also need to classify individuals properly to ensure they understand the possible discrimination issues up front and will not be unwittingly blind-sided by someone whom they thought was a contingent worker, but who is subsequently determined to be an employee. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Eisenberg v. Advance Relocation & Storage, Inc. that when determining whether a worker is an employee for Title VII purposes, the analysis needs to focus on the "extent to which the hiring party controls the manner and means by which the worker completes [his or] her assigned tasks, and not on how [he or] she is treated for tax purposes or whether [he or] she receives benefits." The factors used by the court were derived from the 13 factors set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989). The court in Eisenberg focused on how the "anti-discrimination laws were not intended to be skirted by the terms of individual employment contracts."