No-Fault Providers Need Not Bill After a Denial
- December 16
- For Attorneys
In State Farm v. Domotor 266 A.D.2d 219 (2nd Dept. 1999) the court held that after the no-fault carrier issues a denial of payment there is no need for the medical provider to send bills to the carrier. After the denial the provider can later litigate or arbitrate the bills for services provided after the denial without having to send in bills to the carrier. In Domotor the court held th... CONTINUE READING
Jury Selection: a Few Points on Voire Dire and Trial
- October 17
- For Attorneys
A. How Jurors Learn – Structuring Your Case Theory From your initial interview with the client, you should begin thinking about your discussion with the jury. What are the strengths/weaknesses to be addressed? One good tool is reducing the substance of your case to one sentence. Think... CONTINUE READING
Fourth Department Denies Dismissal of Ski Lift Case
- January 24
- For Attorneys
In Tone v. Song Mountain Ski Center (Fourth Department January 2014), the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's personal injury action for injuries caused while on a ski lift. The plaintiff sustained injuries while using a triple chair left at defendant's facility. Defendant claimed that plaintiff assumed the risk of her injuries in utilizing the ski facility whe... CONTINUE READING
Jury Must Find Substantial Factor When “An” Injury Is Undisputed In Auto Case
- January 16
- For Attorneys
In Herbst v. Marshal, 4th Dept 2011 (CA 11-00326) the Fourth Department upheld the lower Court's ruling to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant as against the weight of the evidence based on the jury's finding that the crash was not a substantial factor in causing an injury to plaintiff. The first question on the verdict sheet wa... CONTINUE READING
NO RIGHT TO OBJECT FOR NON-PARTY WITNESS ATTORNEY AT DEPOSITION
- January 11
- For Attorneys
In Thompson v. Mather, 70 A.D.3d 1436 (4th Dept. 2010) the Court held that an attorney for a non-party witness does not have a right to object to questions asked of his client, or otherwise participate at a deposition. The Court held that CPLR 3113(c) provides that the examination and cross examination of deposition witnesses shall proceed as permitted in the trial of actions in open court. I... CONTINUE READING
ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS MUST BE FAIR
- January 11
- For Attorneys
As an attorney who practices law involving attorney employment agreements, I have read many cases where the contract is unenforcable because in impinges on the clients' right to freely chose their counsel. Attorney employment agreements are unenforcable that state that when an attorney leaves a firm and takes firm clients with her, the departing attorney's portion of the fee will be li... CONTINUE READING
Serious Injury Threshold Motion Does Not Necessarily Require Doctor’s Affirmation.
- December 20
- For Attorneys
In Feggins v. Fagard, 52 AD 3d 1221 (4th Dept. 2008) the Court held that in response to a threshold motion plaintiff may rely on unsworn reports and uncertified medical records submitted by defendants or simply referenced in the submitted reports of defendant's examining physicians. As a practicing personal injury attorney in Buffalo, I would ague that this eliminates the... CONTINUE READING
OHIO COURT FINDS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT UNENFORCABLE THAT REQUIRES ATTORNEY TO RETURN 95% OF FEES
- August 21
- For Attorneys
As an attorney that handles attorney employment agreement cases I am always interested in cases which impinge upon the clients' right to counsel. In Hackett v. Moore, 160 Ohio Misc.2d 107, 2010-Ohio-6298, the court held unenforcable an employment agreement between a law firm and its attorney employee that limited the amount of the fees the attorney would receive from clietns who follow... CONTINUE READING
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS MUST NOT CREATE FINANCIAL DISINCENTIVES
- August 7
- For Attorneys
Often times law firm employment contracts will set forth the amount of the fee the departing attorney is entitled to should current clients go with a departing attorney when she leaves. The amount can never be contingent upon whether or not she informed her clients that she is leaving. She has an ethical obligation to do so. There is much case law regarding this matter. The case law comes fro... CONTINUE READING
Sovereign Immunity Grounds Do Not Always Apply
- June 25
- For Attorneys
In Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving v. Lewiston Golf Course Corporation, (4th Dept. 2013) the court held that "The central question on this appeal is whether defendant Lewiston Golf Course Corporation (LGCC), a corporation formed under the laws of the Seneca Nation of Indians (Nation or SNI), is protected by th... CONTINUE READING
NO RECOVERY, NO FEE
