AHLA's monthly podcast featuring health lawyer and blogger Norm Tabler's informative and entertaining take on recent health law and other legal developments.
To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.
AHLA's monthly podcast featuring health lawyer and blogger Norm Tabler's informative and entertaining take on recent health law and other legal developments.
To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.
<silence>
Speaker 2:This episode of A HLA speaking of health law is brought to you by A HLA members and donors like you. For more information, visit american health law.org.
Speaker 3:Hi, I am Norm Tabar With this month's edition of the Lighter Side of Health Law. Context is everything. Here's a news item that proves that context is everything. In this case, historical context. The headline in a law practice newsletter today is that imminent law firm, Simpson Thacher, is requiring lawyers to be in the office four days a week. Why is that big news? Because it's now unusual to require lawyers to be in the office for so many days, as in it's like something from Charles Dickens. Lawyers have to be there. Are you sitting down four days a week back in the 20th century when I was a young lawyer, and yes, I was once young. The four day a week announcement would've been headline news, but for a completely different reason. The point would've been, can you believe those slackers only have to be in the office four days a week when the rest of us are there for six days most weeks and five when things are really slow? As I said, context is everything. Trailblazer Award. This month's Trailblazer Award goes to Massachusetts attorney Jeffrey Rosen, for his imaginative illegal coaching of his client. During a deposition. You're thinking, what's the big deal? Lawyers illegally coach their clients in depositions all the time. You're right. But as is so often, the case timing is everything. Jeffrey was the first lawyer to get caught coaching during the age of Covid, the first to take advantage of the fact that participants were on Zoom and wearing masks. The mask. Plus, well timed de muting of his microphone enabled Jeffrey to make a somewhat effective effort at hiding his coaching. I say somewhat effective because when his suspicious opposing counsel played the deposition tape over and over, he could hear Jeffrey mumbling his coaching instructions through his mask over 50 times. Because Jeffrey was the first to get caught in the age of Covid. He received national attention for the deed, the kind of attention you'd love to get for something good, but not for something bad. In addition to the unwanted attention, Jeffrey lost a $65,000 legal fee was thrown off. The case required to spend unpaid time bringing new lawyers up to speed, had to pay $22,000 in legal fees to opposing counsel, and was publicly reprimanded by the Massachusetts Bar, all of which proves that it's not always good to be first. Glad I'm not that guy. Department. You can add Marvin Fish to the list of people I wouldn't wanna beat, and no, it's not because his name is Fish . No, it's because of what Marvin did in his room at the Quality Inn in Fitzgerald, Georgia. When he took off his overalls, he hung them on a sprinkler head, presumably because that was easier than using a hangar. Well, you can see what's coming. Although apparently Marvin couldn't, there was a fire under normal conditions. The sprinkler system would've easily taken care of that, but this time it couldn't because you've already guessed it. Marvin's overalls were blocking the sprinkler head. Well, $75,000 worth of fire damage later. The Quality Ends Insurance Company has sued Marvin for that $75,000. Betty uses a hangar next time. The case is Westfield Campion Insurance versus Fish Middle District, Georgia. Today's quiz. Today's quiz concerns auto insurance, specifically uninsured underinsured coverage. The policy in question covers a hit and run vehicle. In this case, a woman was driving along minding her own business when another car approached and its driver began shooting at her. She tried to evade the shooter's car, but it kept after her. One of the shots went into her rear tire and trying to escape. She drove off the street and hit an island or a sidewalk then crashed into a wall in court. The issue was whether the shooter's car was a hit and run vehicle. Its driver head after all, chased the plaintiff and shot a rear tire out. The answer courtesy of the Fifth Circuit is that the shooter's car was not a hit and run vehicle. It might have been a shoot and run vehicle, but not a hit and run vehicle. Why not? Because there was no physical contact between the two vehicles. So now you know when okay, is not okay. Okay. I admit it. Sometimes I judge things by their appearance, even books, by their covers. So when I came across an article about a pharmacy called Okay Compounding, I was immediately suspicious. Something about, okay, compounding just didn't sound okay. You don't name a pharmacy. Okay? And sure enough, okay , was doing things that are not okay. Like paying kickbacks through Sham medical director and consulting physician contracts, okay's owner was sentenced to 36 months of supervised probation. The problem with do it yourself law, here's a case showing the risks of do it yourself law. Dole Brothers Construction Company had a legal problem. One of its employees had driven a tractor trailer over another employee, Neil Witty killing him. Neil's wife, Jennifer, sued for wrongful death. The company's insurer, great American, was ready to defend when the company gave it some surprise news the day before the trial. Great news, the company said in effect, we got together with Jennifer and settled the case. Sort of. We agreed to pay a specific amount no matter how the trial comes out. Well, the trial ended with a $58 million judgment against Doles . We don't know whether that was higher or lower than the deal. Doles struck with Jennifer. What we do know is that the insurer is not paying a cent. Why? Because the policy says in black and white that the insured doles cannot enter into any agreement without the insurer's consent, which is exactly what Delise did in this case, and that's the problem with DIY law. The case is Great American versus Delise brothers. Western District Oklahoma law firm sued for flattery. It was Oscar Wilde who said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But apparently the Hussan Law Group, HLG, didn't like to be flattered. HLG and mega firm Winston and Stroum represent co-defendants in a patent case, HLG filed a motion to dismiss on August 23, Winston and STR filed a motion to dismiss on August 24, and its motion read a lot like lgs. Not exactly like it, but a lot like it apparently having a lot of time on its hands. HLG obtained a copyright on its motion on August 30. Yes, you heard correctly. HLG got a copyright on its motion to dismiss Then surprise, surprise, HLG sued Winston and strong for copyright infringement for infringing on the copyright. It got six days after the alleged infringement. Ah , the majesty of the law truly fake news. Sometimes a newspaper article can be useful in support of an argument. In litigation lawyer, ed Chung knew that when he was arguing in the ninth Circuit that opposing party Chevron might skip out on an $18 billion arbitration award. So he submitted a copy of an article from the Saudi Sun and the article was right on point, squarely supporting Ed's argument. There was just one problem. There is no Saudi sun . Ed made the newspaper up just like he made the article up. For some reason, that really angered the Ninth Circuit. Judges had also angered them that when they brought the subject up, ed accused them of collusion with Chevron and its lawyers and that he was a no-show at his sanctions hearing. All of which helps explain why the court sanctioned to add a whopping $268,000 complaint department co-parenting. My complaint this month is about the term co-parenting. It's somehow crept into usage over the past decade or so. I know what it's supposed to mean. The rearing of a child by two parents who are no longer together but co means joint or mutual or common as in co-education or maybe co-pilot. If male students occupy the campus for one academic year and female students the next, it's not co-education. Males and females have to be there together for it to be co-education. The same goes for co-pilots. They have to be in the plane together. If Pilot A flies the plane one day and pilot B the next, they're not co-pilots. When two parents live together and rear a child together, that's co-parenting. It's great when two parents who are no longer together can agree on how to share the child rearing separately, but it's not co-parenting. There I've said it. If you have a complaint, send it to me . Well , that's it for this month's edition. I hope you liked it. I'll be back next month with another edition of the Lighter Side of Health Law.
Speaker 2:Thank you for listening. If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe to A HLA speaking of health law wherever you get your podcasts. To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit American Health Law.