Selection to Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive and rigorous peer-review survey comprising more than 3.1 million confidential evaluations by the top attorneys in the country.
A Virginia family law practitioner sued his legal malpractice carrier and won. Read this blog to find out more about the case involving Terry Batzli and Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.
The Supreme Court of Virginia has sent a message to trial judges: "Don't be so quick to dismiss cases." When a dispute is over a matter of law a judge can dismiss the case, but when the dispute hinges on a matter of fact the case should be left for the jury. The Supreme Court of VA emphasizes this fact in two recent decisions.
A bill has been proposed that will significantly increase the fees to file a civil action in Virginia. Hopefully, this bill does not pass; otherwise Virginia will have the highest filing fees in the country.
Virginia personal injury attorney Ben Glass talks about a nightmare of a case where a woman settled her case on her own to "save the attorney fee." Did the insurance company do anything wrong?
Our firm handled a case against a local company that cares for disabled adults. We alleged that the negligence of the staff of Didlake, Inc. caused serious injury to a disabled adult, necessitating surgery to install a titanium rod into his leg. Didlake denied the claim, denied it was responsible and took the position that it couldn't be sued because it was a "charitable organization" entitled to charitable immunity.
We took the case to the Supreme Court of Virginia and lost. We were challenging Didlake's assertion, as a multi-million dollar organization, that it was entitled to "charitable immunity.
Didlake won the argumemt and full credit to them for asserting the winning argument this time.
However, the case is important. In our view charitable immunity is a relic from the dark ages, especially in a world of insurance (which Didlake has) and the fact that the charitable immunity doctrine singles out ONLY those who are receiving the benefit of the charity, and makes them the sacrificial lambs in the interest of something as ill-defined and nebulous as the "public interest."
Anyway, several bloggers picked up on our press release and blogs and of course, there is a court opinion on the case. The opinion is favorable to Didlake.
So its just very interesting that Didlake is trying to convince bloggers to take down factual, truthful, blogs.
In this morning's Washington Post, President Obama describing what he is looking for in a Supreme Court Justice:
1. "someone with common sense and a sense of how American society works"
2. "who can not only understand the lives of ordinary people but also grasp the practical consequences of rulings on businesses."
3. "You have to have not only the intellect to be able to apply the law to cases before you, but be able to stand in somebody's else shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living."
These ARE NOT criteria for a Supreme Court justice. They are what legislators do and ought to be. It sounds like Obama is saying that even if the law is clear a ruling should be based more on "common sense."
That's simply not the role of a Supreme Court justice. A Supreme Court is there to interpret existing law and either throw it out because it is in conflict with our Consitution or rule on the facts and law before them.
Here, Ben rants about one of the perfect examples of why some taxpayers are so upset with rampant government misuse of our dollars and why we need to keep holding Tea Party revolts.
I've written before about those spam emails that lawyers get from advertising services offering to serve up "pearl shucked" clients.. I wondered..."if you are a client, why would you want to go to a lawyer who advertised that way?"
There you will meet a roomful of lawyer and their staff who do have a life and who don't chase ambulances or sit around waiting for pearl shucked clients.
The new Glazer-Kennedy local chapter is now operational in Northern Virginia. Ben Glass and Tom Foster run this group for local small business entrepreneurs who are unwilling to wait around for "rescue."
Carolyn Elefant, (MyShingle.com), solicited input from solo and small firm attorneys across the United States as to why what they do "matters."
I thought you like to see the contest winners. Its inspiring to all of those, in any business or endeavor, who may be struggling or questioning why they do what they do.
Getting ERISA disability benefits is difficult enough without trying to figure out the taxation of the darn things. This is an area where you really need to track down your accountant (which for some may mean getting an accountant). Here's a short article and an interesting new case on the subject.
The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that an doctor who is hired to do a so-called indepedent medical examination of a plaintiff in a lawsuit can be sured for injuries he allegedly caused during the examination. This brings Virginia in line with every state that has considered the issue. A synopsis and the full opinion are available by following this link.
While Virginia juries tend to be very conservative and the insurance companies take advantage of this (and feed that conservatism by their lobbying, advertising and outright lies) our experience is that juries will compensate those with real, provable injuries. You can get some sense of how some Virginia personal injury cases are turning out. Personal Injury Verdicts and Settlements are Here.
Virginia medical malpractice laws have a notoriously low "cap" on recovery. One that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that medical bills may be millions of dollars. Virginia's laws virtually guarantee bankruptcy to the most seriously injured patients. Here we summarize recent verdicts and settlements in Virginia medical malpractice cases.
I understand the sometimes the reputation and prestige of lawyers in the community isn't stellar. But sometimes we do it to ourselves. This story, out of Las Vegas, alleges that lawyers and doctors have colluded to defraud the insurance companies. I emphasize that this is simply on ongoing investigation at this time, but this is almost unbelievable.
The February 20 issue of Newsweek carries an article about hospitals banning camerals in the delivery room. According to the article the "official reasons" are privacy and safety concerns. The real reason, though, must be because videotapes sometimes do yield evidence of medical malpractice. So are the hospital's afraid of what the tapes would show? We certainly have seen cases where fetal heart monitor strips have "dissapeared" after a child is injured at birth.
What do you think? Should videotapes be allowed in the delivery room. Why don't we make videotaping mandatory for all deliveries? How about all surgeries. If their was no malpractice (as is the case most of the time) then the doctors should be happy. Heck, most responsible doctors should WANT the videotape running.