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 Taber with this month's edition of the Lighter Side of Health Law. What's in a name? That's a question Julie asks as she reflects on Romeo's last name. When it comes to Traveler, David Wise, it seems there's not much in his last name. If he was wise, why did he drink out of the best Western's Motel hot tub ? If he had just applied Common Sense, he wouldn't have, and then he wouldn't have contracted Legionnaire's disease, and if he hadn't contracted Legionnaire's disease, he wouldn't have sued the Best Western and then the Best Western wouldn't have sued Brethren Mutual Insurance Company for coverage. But he did, and it did, and Brethren eventually settled with Best Western and David Wise learned it's unwise to drink from the Motel hot tub. The case is Brethren Mutual versus Jev , Western District Virginia, litigating New York style . They call New York litigators bare knuckle Brawlers. But here's a case where it's not just the knuckles that are bare lawyer. Jeffrey Chadro represented two defendants accused of stealing millions from their boss. They counterclaimed accusing their boss of sexual harassment. So naturally Jeffrey thought it appropriate to include several nude and semi-nude photos of the boss in his motion to state the proceedings. Being a discreet guy , Jeffrey included a request that some, but not all of the photos be filed under seal. The judge sealed all of them. Later, when Jeffrey filed a motion for summary judgment, he filed more sexually explicit photos of the boss, including the same photos that the judge had sealed. The judge entered a show cause order against Jeffrey. His response presumably filed with a straight face , was that he had no idea there was a rule against filing semi-nude photos of the opposing party on the public docket. Strangely, the judge was not persuaded by Jeffrey's argument. She entered a sanction order and fined him $1,000. I agree with the judge, but I take issue with one comment she made in scolding Jeffrey . She said, quote , Mr. Charo need to only consider how his own clients would feel if the shoe were on the other foot. I think a more appropriate comment would've been if the trousers were off the other party. Me and my big mouth. Me and my big mouth. I'm assuming that's what New Jersey lawyer Marcy gle was muttering after the New Jersey. Supreme Court suspended her for a year for overcharging clients in real estate transactions by collecting fake fees or fee amounts higher than the actual fees. Where does her big mouth come in? You're wondering? Well, the only reason the New Jersey Supreme Court or anyone else knew about the scam was that during a lull and a real estate closing, Marcy blurted out that she had come up with a crackerjack idea on how to take money from clients and was surprised no one else had thought of it. You just charged senior citizens transfer fees without the discount they're entitled to, and you keep the difference or you charge for non-existent fees. Well, the other people at the closing took notice, especially the lawyer who was secretary of the ethics committee for East Morris and Sussex counties. He turned Marcy in. It turns out that Marcy had been netting 50 to a hundred thousand dollars a year through the scam. Remember that Marcy said she was surprised. No one else had thought of the scam. Well contrast that with her defense, which was, Hey, I only did it because all the other lawyers are doing it. Labels matter. Here's a case demonstrating the importance of how something is labeled. After drinking in Zaps Sports Bar, Brad Polly was both intoxicated and angry. He got into his car and drove it straight into the bar, injuring several bar patrons. The bar and the injured patrons demanded that the bar's liability insurer, Atlantic Casualty cover the incident. Atlantic refused citing the exclusion for assault and battery. The bar and injured patrons responded. This wasn't assault and battery. This was a car crash. Atlantic won the Argumenting. One reason was the label on the crime. Brad had pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular assault. The case is Atlantic Casualty versus ruts Southern District Ohio. Only in America, six flags Theme Park in Missouri has an annual Halloween Fright Fest, an event where you pay good money to get scared out of your wits. Carly Munoz thought that sounded great. So she forked over the admission fee and went into the park where for three fun filled hours, she encountered characters who tried to scare her. She saw countless other guests scream and run away in fear from the variously costumed park characters. Around 11:00 PM a clown jumped out of nowhere. Well, it seemed like nowhere and started chasing a group of guests. Everyone including Carly, ran for their lives. Carly tripped on a curb and hurt herself. This being America, Carly naturally sued Six Flags and the unidentified clown whom she called doe , apparently leaving off the first name because she didn't know the sex of the scary clown. Do scary clowns even have a sex? If not, where did baby clowns come from? But back to the lawsuit. What was Carly's claim? Well, wasn't it obvious defendants didn't scare people in a safe manner? A clown shouldn't chase people once they start running. It's scary. Well, as nervy as it sounds, six flags move for summary judgment arguing that a person who pays good money to go to Fright Fest assumes the risk of being frightened. That's why they call it Fright Fest. Carly had assumed the risk of being frightened of running away and fright and therefore tripping and falling while running away. The trial court agreed with Six Flags and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the moral to the story. If you pay good money to attend Fright Fest, you assume the risk that you'll be frightened and do the things people do when frightened like running away and of doing the things people do when running away, like tripping and falling. I know that's frightening, but it's the law. The case is MNOs versus Six Flags. Worst idea of the Month award. This month's worst idea of the month award goes to New York Attorney J , that's JAES Lee. She represented the plaintiff in an appeal to the Second Circuit. Her case had been dismissed by the district court for persistent and knowing violation of court orders, so the court was already short on patience when she filed a brief citing a decision with the impressive name matter of Bogen y versus coordinated behavioral health services. When the court couldn't find a copy of the case, it ordered her to produce a copy belatedly. She replied that she could not furnish a copy. She didn't say why, but the court did. She couldn't submit a copy because the case does not exist. When the court demanded an explanation, she replied in effect, well, it wasn't my fault. I relied on chat GPT and chat GPT let me down. It gave me the case name. How in the world could I know the case doesn't exist? Then came the worst idea of the month. You know what she added? In effect, the court really ought with advised lawyers about the risks of using artificial intelligence. In other words, it's your fault for not warning me the court's response. We don't need to issue a warning. Rule 11 says in black and white that lawyers have a duty to verify the accuracy of their filings. You violated that rule and you are hereby referred to the court's grievance panel for investigation and consideration of referral to the bar committee on admissions and grievances. The case is Park versus Kim Second Circuit, and it really does exist. Complaint department, when a word is worth a thousand pictures, everybody says a picture is worth a thousand words, but not always. Sometimes it's the opposite. Take elevator buttons. You've probably had this experience. You get on the elevator with time to spare, but just as the doors are closing, one more person tries to get on. Maybe it's your boss or that news , sixth floor receptionist you'd like to meet. You wanna stop the door from closing, and let's face it, you want credit for your courtesy. You look at the button panel. The only button with a word says emergency. That can't be it even if it is your boss. All the other buttons have numbers except two with graphic symbols. One has the math symbol for less than on the left and more than on the right. The other has more than on the left and less than on the right. One must mean open and the other closed , but which is a witch . You have to make a split second decision. Sadly, you make the wrong one. You've not only failed to keep the doors open, you've sped up the closing worse. You've been seen doing it by the boss or the receptionist. Now imagine that the two buttons had the words open and close on them. You'd instantly know which one to push. The doors would stay open and your boss or the receptionist would be impressed by your courtesy. That's when a word is worth a thousand pictures. 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 enjoy this episode, be sure to subscribe to a HLA speaking of health law wherever you get your podcasts. To learn more about a HLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit American health law.org.