Marriot Withdraws "blame the victime" defense in rape case
AppId is over the quota
Kudos to the Marriott International corporation who firmly rejected a defense to a lawsuit which one of its defense attorney teams had asserted.
A Connecticut woman who was allegedly raped at gunpoint in front of her children in a hotel parking garage. The assailant went to jail.
Whether or not you believe that Marriott had any responsibility to prevent a criminal act (we don't know all the facts) the wizards on the defense team inserted typical boilerplate language in the defense of the case that asserted that this mom was herself resonsible for the criminal act because she "failed to exercise due care for her own safety."
As you can imagine, this boilerplate defense, inserted by lawyers paid by an insurance company, was NOT a good thing for Marriot's public relations. After all, why would you go to a hotel that thought so little of its customers?
Good of Marriott to say to its own defense team, in effect, you guys are morons.
Whether its a company that tells its customers that they need to go to another state to sue them or a health facility that says to the disabled, you aren't allowed to sue us...corporations must know that the defenses they assert in lawsuits have meaning beyond the current case.
As we see them, we will continue to expose them, as we expose those cases we deem frivolous.
Message:
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
For security purposes, please enter the graphic text in the box below: [hit F5 if you can not read the text]
Virginia DUI Defense Book Now Available
AppId is over the quota
Posted on Dec 11, 2007
The Virginia DUI Defense Book will be emailed to you in just a few minutes. Just click on this link to go to the order form (it's free.)
back to top
Defense Says Casey Anthony Video Release Violates HIPAA
AppId is over the quota
A Florida judge said footage of Casey Anthony previously sealed during her trial because it was considered inflammatory could be released. The security video, which has no audio, was taken in the waiting area of a medical facility. It shows Casey Anthony rocking back and forth and struggling to catch her breath when she learns, from a television placed in the room, that remains had been found near the home of Anthony’s parents in Orlando. After collapsing, she immediately requests a meeting with her lawyer. At that point the remains had not yet been identified as Anthony’s daughter, Caylee, who had been missing for six months.
Prosecutors had argued that showing the video to jurors would help prove that Anthony knew the remains were that of Caylee, and was reacting to the negative impact this development would have on her case. They compared Anthony’s reaction in the video to another incident, in which Anthony had remained calm and unemotional when other remains, that turned out not to be Caylee, had been previously found.
Until Friday, the footage had been sealed. On Friday, Judge Belvin Perry ruled that the tape could be unsealed because, “The reason for sealing it—Ms. Anthony’s right to a fair trial—is no longer applicable because the trial has been completed and she has been acquitted of all charges other than lying to law enforcement officers.”
Anthony’s attorney, Jose Baez, argued that the tape should remain sealed, and that to unseal it would violate Anthony’s privacy under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), because Anthony was in a medical facility when the video was taken. Under the Act, patients have the right to privacy concerning their medical records and data.
Anthony was given a sedative in the waiting room after learning remains had been found. Baez argued that a videotape of Anthony receiving treatment in a medical facility violated her privacy.
Perry said that Anthony was not, in fact, in a medical facility. She was in a waiting room. The administration of the sedative did not transform the waiting room into a medical facility. Furthermore, Perry said the video could not be construed as medical data or medical records, and in no way related to the evaluation of Anthony’s physical or mental condition. And if that weren’t enough, Perry stated that Anthony was not entitled to privacy under HIPAA while in jail.
Know Your HIPAA Rights
While Baez’s argument didn’t hold much water in this situation, it’s important that you are aware of your own rights under HIPAA, especially if you’ve been in an accident and are dealing with insurance companies.
If an insurance company asks for information related to your diagnosis and treatment, it’s very important that you understand what they are entitled to, and what they are not.
Most of what you need to know is located in Title II of HIPAA, and specifically discusses Protected Health Information, which is defined as information about health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care. A New Jersey personal injury attorney can help you demystify this portion of HIPAA, so that your rights are protected.
You should already be somewhat familiar with the Privacy Rule, as doctors are now required to give you the privacy notification when you visit. Health insurers are also required to share the privacy notification with you when you sign on to your plan. There are four points to become familiar with.
A healthcare provider may disclose Protected Health Information to obtain treatment, health care operations, or payment, or if they have obtained authorization from the individual.A healthcare provider must notify patients of how their Personal Health Information will be used, and must make an effort to disclose only the minimum amount of information necessary to achieve its purpose.The healthcare provider must have a complaint process in place if the individual feels his or her Protected Health Information has been improperly distributed.If the patient feels the healthcare provider is not abiding the Privacy Rule, he or she can file an official complaint with the United States Department of Health and Human Services.If you’ve recently been injured in an accident and believe that your HIPAA rights have been violated, you may be due civil penalties. Contact New Jersey accident attorneys to discuss your legal options.
Defense Seeking $900k Fee Request in Charlottesville Death Case
AppId is over the quota
Posted on Sep 28, 2011
A case that was about to set a record with a combined verdict of over $10 million in a wrongful death case hit some snags when it was exposed that one of the victims, Isaiah Lester, posted Facebook photos that indicated he mispresented the extent of his injuries. His attorney, Matthew B. Murray, a partner at Richmond-based law firm Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen, was shown to have knowledge of these photos and to have deliberately concealed evidence.
With the verdict being dramatically cut by Judge Edward L. Hogshire, Murray's firm is now busy trying to stem fees claimed by the defense firm for Allied Concrete, Patten Boggs.
The two primary issues lie in determining whether the Allen firm is held responsible for the misconduct of Murray, who they claim "acted alone and outside the scope of his employment."
However, this was countered by Benjamin G. Chew, counsel for the concrete company. He believes that the actions of Murray were "within the course of his employment."
Besides that debate, there is also a struggle going on between the two parties over what could amount to a $900,000 bill for attorney fees for Allied's lawyers. Chew brought in Charlottesville lawyer J. Brian Jackson, who said that he regularly charges $475 per hour for high profile cases like the one involving Lester. At that rate, the attorney's fees would indeed come out to the $900,000 requested in sanctions by the defense.
Murray's counsel countered this argument by presenting Richmond lawyer Gary A. Kalbaugh Jr. who said he charges a rate of $185 per hour.
These wildly different rates will be the cause of debate as the case moves forward, with the attorneys for Lester and Murray getting the last word, with 10 more days to file any extra materials.
Read More About Defense Seeking $900k Fee Request in Charlottesville Death Case...back to top
Frivolous defense sanctions leading to the Attorney
The lawyer claims that he should be used just stating the defense, which he thought the facts arise. Problem is, that he was the same lawyer, the case was before as after the discovery was not suitable. Meaning: he already had all the facts of the case but still went ahead and tried to include more affirmative defense. This was a products liability RS using a faulty airbag. A few of the defence as "totally unfounded" were those contributory negligence, assumption of risk, negligence of third parties, failure, a cause of action, to reduce State lack of notice about the warranty claims, and failure to damage. At the hearing right to strike this defence the sanctioned lawyer conceded that "In this defence was not sufficient facts."
Lately, I appear in a lot of these defense run, where there are insufficient facts. Later more, stay tuned.
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
Off for security reasons, enter the image text in the box below: [press F5 when you can't read the text]
