DOCSLIB.ORG

The Empowered Paralegal Cause of Action Handbook Mongue 00 Fmt Cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page Ii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Empowered Paralegal Cause of Action Handbook Mongue 00 Fmt Cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page Ii mongue 00 fmt cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page i The Empowered Paralegal Cause of Action Handbook mongue 00 fmt cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page ii Carolina Academic Press ————— The Empowered Paralegal Series Robert E. Mongue The Empowered Paralegal: Effective, Efficient and Professional The Empowered Paralegal: Working with the Elder Client The Empowered Paralegal Professionalism Anthology mongue 00 fmt cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page iii The Empowered Paralegal Cause of Action Handbook Robert E. Mongue Associate Professor Department of Legal Studies The University of Mississippi Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina mongue 00 fmt cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page iv Copyright © 2014 Robert E. Mongue All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mongue, Robert E. The empowered paralegal cause of action handbook / Robert E. Mongue. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-59460-933-6 (alk. paper) 1. Causes of actions--United States. 2. Legal assistants--United States-- Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title. KF8863.M66 2013 346.7302'1 2013021992 Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America mongue 00 fmt cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page v Dedicated to David D. Gregory Professor of Law University of Maine “In the collective memory of his students, Professor Gregory will always be remembered for the Socratic genius that he employed so effectively in class; his keen wit, often accompanied by a knowing smile and twinkle in his eyes; his passion for ferreting out seemingly elusive legal principles; and his compassion and warth for those he instructed.” 53 Me. L. Rev. 1 (2001). It was from Professor Gregory that I gained my first real understanding of the role of causes of action. mongue 00 fmt cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page vii Contents Preface xiii Acknowledgments xv Part One · Understanding the Role of Causes of Action Chapter One · Introduction 3 The Legal Team 3 Causes of Action, Facts, Evidence, and Proof 6 Causes of Actions and Their Elements 6 Facts 7 Evidence 7 Proof 8 Stages of a Civil Proceeding 12 Stage One: Before Litigation 13 Stage Two: Pre- Trial 15 Stage Three: Trial 16 Our Hypothetical 16 Conclusion 18 Chapter Two · Using the Elements of a Cause of Action before Litigation 19 Using Cause of Action Analysis to Prepare for and Conduct a Client Interview 19 Using Cause of Action Analysis to Prepare for and Conduct Pre- Filing Investigation and Legal Research 32 Legal Research Planning 34 Investigation Planning 39 Conclusion 45 vii mongue 00 fmt cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page viii viii CONTENTS Chapter Three · Using the Elements of a Cause of Action in Pre-Trial Litigation 47 Using Cause of Action Analysis in Drafting the Complaint and Other Pleadings 49 The Complaint 49 Responsive Pleadings — The Answer 51 Responsive Pleadings — Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss 52 Responsive Pleadings — Defenses 53 Using Cause of Action Analysis to Prepare for and Conduct Discovery 54 Using Cause of Action Analysis to Prepare for and Conduct Alternative Dispute Resolution 59 Using Cause of Action Analysis in Motions for Summary Judgment 64 Conclusion 67 Chapter Four · Using the Elements of a Cause of Action in Preparing for Trial 69 Trial Tactics 69 Searching for Truth in All the Wrong Places 70 Presentation Counts — The Best Dog & Pony Show Wins 71 Demonstrative Aids and Exhibits 71 Be Prepared 72 Establish a Theme — Tell a Story 73 Litigation Notebooks 74 Trial Notebooks 79 Evidence Trees 80 Exhibit Lists and Pages 87 Witness Lists and Pages 91 Conclusion 93 Part Two · Common Causes of Action, Doctrines, Rules and Defenses Chapter Five · Contracts 97 Contract Elements 98 1. Offer 98 2. Acceptance 100 3. Intent/Mutual Assent 102 4. Consideration 103 5. Legality 105 6. Capacity 106 mongue 00 fmt cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page ix CONTENTS ix Contract Causes of Action 108 1. Breach of Contract 108 2. Breach of Express Contract Warranties 109 3. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability 110 4. Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Use 112 Contractual Remedies 114 1. Damages 114 1.1 Compensatory Damages 114 1.2 Punitive Damages 116 1.3 Consequential Damages 118 1.4 Liquidated Damages 120 2. Specific Performance 123 3. Rescission 125 4. Reformation 126 Equitable Causes of Action as Contract Alternatives 128 1. Promissory Estoppel 128 2. Equitable Estoppel 130 3. Unjust Enrichment 132 4. Quasi- Contractual Remedies: Quantum meriut and Quantum valebant 133 Defenses 135 1. Duress 136 2. Fraud 137 3. Misrepresentation 137 4. Undue Influence 138 5. Unconscionability 139 6. Mutual Mistake 141 7. Waiver 143 Chapter Six · Negligence 145 Negligence Causes of Action 145 1. Negligence 145 2. Gross Negligence 147 3. Negligence per se 147 4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 148 Negligence Doctrines and Rules 149 1. Res ipsa loquitur 149 2. Public Duty Doctrine 150 3. Good Samaritan Doctrine 151 4. Emergency Rule 153 mongue 00 fmt cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page x x CONTENTS 5. Substantial Factor Rule 154 6. Foreseeability Test for Proximate Cause 155 Negligence Defenses 156 1. Contributory Negligence 156 2. Comparative Negligence 158 3. Assumption of Risk 159 4. Waiver (Written Assumption of Risk) 160 5. Good Samaritan Immunity 162 6. Sovereign Immunity 164 Chapter Seven · Strict Liability and Other Special Liability Actions 167 Strict Liability 168 1. Animal Owners Liability — Wildlife 168 2. Animal Owners Liability — Domestic Animals 169 3. Abnormally Dangerous Activities 170 4. Strict Product Liability 171 Other Special Liability Actions 173 1. Product Liability — Negligence 173 2. Product Liability — Breach of Warranty 174 3. Premises Liability 177 4. Premises Liability — Attractive Nuisance 178 5. Vicarious Liability 179 6. Motor Vehicle Vicarious Liability 181 Doctrines and Rules 182 1. Vicious Propensity Rule 182 2. Frolic and Detour Rule 183 3. Coming and Going Rule 184 4. Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine 186 Defenses 188 Chapter Eight · Intentional Torts 189 Intentional Tort Causes of Action 190 1. Assault 190 2. Battery 192 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 194 4. Invasion of Privacy 196 4.1 Invasion of Privacy— Unreasonable Intrusion 196 4.2 Invasion of Privacy— Appropriation 198 4.3 Invasion of Privacy— Public Disclosure of Private Facts 200 mongue 00 fmt cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page xi CONTENTS xi 4.4 Invasion of Privacy— False Light in the Public Eye 203 5. Trespass 204 5.1 Trespass to Land 204 5.2 Trespass to Chattel 206 5.3 Toxic Trespass 208 6. Conversion 209 7. Defamation 211 7.1 Libel/ Slander 211 7.2 Slander of Title 213 7.3 Commercial Disparagement 215 8. Nuisance 217 8.1 Private Nuisance 217 8.2 Public Nuisance 220 9. False Imprisonment 221 10. Sexual Harassment 223 11. Fraud and Misrepresentation 224 11.1 Fraud 225 11.2 Misrepresentation (Negligent Misrepresentation) 227 12. Malicious Prosecution/Abuse of Process 229 Doctrines and Rules 230 1. Transferred Intent Doctrine 230 2. Actual Malice Rule 232 3. Defamation per se 235 4. “Coming to Nuisance” Doctrine 237 Defenses 238 1. Consent 238 2. Self- Defense 240 3. Defense of Others 241 4. Defense of Property 242 5. Privilege 243 Index 245 mongue 00 fmt cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page xiii Preface Even as it is just beginning a new case, a good legal team may envision it- self weeks, months, or years, in the future at the point where the judge in that case is instructing the jury. The team members envision themselves as confi- dent in the outcome of the case as the judge instructs the jury that they must apply the law to the evidence of facts produced at trial. Since the judge is in- structing the jury to apply the law which has provided the team with the frame- work on which the team has built its case from the beginning through each stage of the legal proceeding, the members of the legal team are confident they have produced evidence of each fact necessary to prove each element of the causes of action now being explained to the jury by the judge. This relatively short scenario has much more substance and requires much more understanding than may first appear. That substance and understanding is the subject of Part One of this book. In Chapter One, some of the key con- cepts are introduced: 1. The legal team, 2. The difference between facts, evidence, and proof, 3. Causes of action and their elements, 4. The connection between the elements of causes of action, facts, evi- dence, and proof of those elements, 5. Stages of a civil proceeding. In Chapter One we introduce a hypothetical fact pattern which will be used to demonstrate the utilization of those concepts at each stage of a legal proceeding, starting with preparation for a client interview and ending with the trial, to achieve the vision described above. Each of the following chapters in Part One illustrates that utilization. In Chapter Two we focus on using cause of action analysis to prepare for and con- duct a client interview, investigate a client’s case, conduct legal research, en- gage in settlement discussion, and draft the initial pleadings. Chapter Three then examines the role of cause of action analysis in preliminary motion practice, discovery and pre- trial motion practice. Chapter Four demonstrates the use xiii mongue 00 fmt cx2 2/3/14 12:23 PM Page xiv xiv PREFACE of cause of action analysis to develop a trial strategy and a trial notebook de- signed to implement that strategy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: an Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1987 The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines Alan O. Sykes Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alan O. Sykes, "The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines," 101 Harvard Law Review 563 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 101 JANUARY 1988 NUMBER 3 HARVARD LAW REVIEW1 ARTICLES THE BOUNDARIES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT RULE AND RELATED LEGAL DOCTRINES Alan 0. Sykes* 441TICARIOUS liability" may be defined as the imposition of lia- V bility upon one party for a wrong committed by another party.1 One of its most common forms is the imposition of liability on an employer for the wrong of an employee or agent. The imposition of vicarious liability usually depends in part upon the nature of the activity in which the wrong arises. For example, if an employee (or "servant") commits a tort within the ordinary course of business, the employer (or "master") normally incurs vicarious lia- bility under principles of respondeat superior. If the tort arises outside the "scope of employment," however, the employer does not incur liability, absent special circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Around Frolic and Detour, a Persistent Problem on the Highway of Torts William A
    Campbell Law Review Volume 19 Article 4 Issue 1 Fall 1996 January 1996 Automobile Insurance Policies Build "Write-Away" Around Frolic and Detour, a Persistent Problem on the Highway of Torts William A. Wines Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Insurance Law Commons Recommended Citation William A. Wines, Automobile Insurance Policies Build "Write-Away" Around Frolic and Detour, a Persistent Problem on the Highway of Torts, 19 Campbell L. Rev. 85 (1996). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. Wines: Automobile Insurance Policies Build "Write-Away" Around Frolic an AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICIES BUILD "WRITE-AWAY" AROUND FROLIC AND DETOUR, A PERSISTENT PROBLEM ON THE HIGHWAY OF TORTS WILLIAM A. WINESt Historians trace the origin of the doctrine of frolic and detour to the pronouncement of Baron Parke in 1834.1 The debate over the wisdom and the theoretical underpinnings of the doctrine seems to have erupted not long after the birth of the doctrine. No less a scholar than Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., questioned whether the doctrine was contrary to common sense.2 This doc- trine continued to attract legal scholars who were still debating the underlying policy premises as the doctrine celebrated its ses- quicentennial and headed toward the second century mark.3 However, the main source of cases which test the doctrine, namely automobile accidents, has started to decline, at least insofar as it involves "frolic and detour" questions and thus the impact of this doctrine may becoming minimized.4 t William A.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Liability for Employees' Intentional Torts
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ValpoScholar Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 53 Number 1 pp.1-45 Institutional Liability for Employees’ Intentional Torts: Vicarious Liability as a Quasi-Substitute for Punitive Damages Catherine M. Sharkey Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Catherine M. Sharkey, Institutional Liability for Employees’ Intentional Torts: Vicarious Liability as a Quasi- Substitute for Punitive Damages, 53 Val. U. L. Rev. 1 (). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol53/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Sharkey: Institutional Liability for Employees’ Intentional Torts: Vicario Articles INSTITUTIONAL LIABILITY FOR EMPLOYEES’ INTENTIONAL TORTS: VICARIOUS LIABILITY AS A QUASI-SUBSTITUTE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES Catherine M. Sharkey* Abstract Modern day vicarious liability cases often address the liability of enterprises and institutions whose agents have committed intentional acts. Increasingly, when employers are sued, the line is blurred between the principal’s vicarious liability for its agent’s acts and its own direct liability for hiring and/or failing to supervise or control its agent. From an economic deterrence perspective, the imposition of vicarious liability induces employers to adopt cost-justified preventative measures, including selective hiring and more stringent supervision and discipline, and, in some instances, to truncate the scope of their business activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Respondeat Superior - Master's Liability to Third Persons Injured As a Result of Accepting an Unauthorized Invitation from the Servant
    DePaul Law Review Volume 15 Issue 2 Spring-Summer 1966 Article 16 Agency - Respondeat Superior - Master's Liability to Third Persons Injured as a Result of Accepting an Unauthorized Invitation from the Servant Robert Williams Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Robert Williams, Agency - Respondeat Superior - Master's Liability to Third Persons Injured as a Result of Accepting an Unauthorized Invitation from the Servant, 15 DePaul L. Rev. 462 (1966) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol15/iss2/16 This Case Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CASE NOTES AGENCY-RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR-MASTER'S LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS INJURED AS A RESULT OF ACCEPTING AN UNAUTHORIZED INVITATION FROM THE SERVANT The defendant's agent departed from his assigned territory during working hours, driving a company car, which had been furnished by the defendant, to call for his daughter. On the return trip home, approximately three miles from their destination, the vehicle collided with another auto- mobile resulting in serious injuries to the daughter. An action was com- menced by the daughter against the employer on the theory that a master is liable to an unauthorized passenger for injuries caused by the wilful and wanton misconduct of the servant. Judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed in the appellate court, but reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court, which held that even if the servant had been acting within the general scope of his employment at the time of the accident, the doctrine of respondeat superior would not apply.
    [Show full text]
  • Intentional Torts
    Torts INTENTIONAL TORTS Intent ‐act intending to produce the harm OR ‐know that harm is substantially certain to result Battery ‐requires dual intent: 1) Act intending to cause harm or offensive contact with person (what is offensive?) 2) harmful contact directly or indirectly results *Vosburg rule used to be only need to intend contact *doesn’t have to know the full extent of the possible harm, just know that it is likely to cause harm *can be liable for any damages, unforeseen or not *thin shin rule *Transferred intent ‐ need not be person who def intended to harm ‐criminal negligence vs. tort negligence ‐small unjustifiable risk vs. big risk, gross deviation from std of care Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 1) Intent to harm (can be imputed from facts) Wilkinson v. Downton (93) o Practical joke where guy tells woman her husband badly injured. o Rule: Such a statement, made suddenly and with apparent seriousness, could fail to produce grave effects under the circumstance upon any but an exceptionally indifferent person, and therefore an intent to produce such an effect must be imputed. 2) Outrageous Conduct RESTATEMENT 2 ‐ 46 ‐ outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress ‐extreme or outrageous conduct ‐ who is deciding? JURY ‐intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress ‐liable for emotional distress and/or bodily harm ‐liable to family members who are present regardless of bodily harm ‐liable to third parties present (not family) IF distress results in bodily harm ‐really does have to be OUTRAGEOUS‐ beyond all decency (Jury decides) ‐expansion from battery to IIED shows expansion of tort law ‐serious threats to physical well‐being are outrageous -The extreme and outrageous character might arise from knowledge that the other is peculiarly susceptible to ED by reason of a physical or mental condition or peculiarity (Amish guy).
    [Show full text]
  • Fraud Liability Under Agency Principles: a New Approach
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 27 (1985-1986) Issue 2 Article 3 February 1986 Fraud Liability Under Agency Principles: A New Approach Steven N. Bulloch Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Agency Commons Repository Citation Steven N. Bulloch, Fraud Liability Under Agency Principles: A New Approach, 27 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 301 (1986), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol27/iss2/3 Copyright c 1986 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr FRAUD LIABILITY UNDER AGENCY PRINCIPLES: A NEW APPROACH STEVEN N. BULLOCH* I. INTRODUCTION The law of agency is unique because it encompasses two separate bodies of law: first, the law governing the vicarious liability of one person for the torts of another; and second, the law governing the contractual rights and obligations created for one person by the actions of another. These two bodies of law developed separately, and the concept of one person's authority to enter into contractual relations on behalf of another evolved long before the concept of vicarious tort liability.1 The theoretical justifications underlying these bodies of law also are totally distinct from each other.' Al- though the two bodies of law generally are treated under the broad heading of "agency law," they are best approached as two separate branches. One question of agency law which is not approached in the ex- pected manner is the potential liability of one person for fraud committed by another. Because fraud is a tort,3 one would assume that the potential liability of one person for the fraudulent conduct of another should be analyzed under the vicarious tort liability branch of agency law.
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Liability of Governmental Units and Their Officers
    TORT LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENTAL UNITS AND THEIR OFFICERS FLEMIG JAM~ES, JR.t NDER THE PREVAILING DOCTRINE in this country neither the state nor the federal government is liable for torts committed in its service by its officers and employees unless it consents to such liability; the officer or employee, however, may be individually liable. This removes at once a very substantial area of injury-produc- ing activity from the operation of forces which have tended to make much of our tort law a vehicle for distributing the loss suffered by the victims of enterprise among the beneficiaries of the enterprise.- The expansion of the activities of government during recent decades points up sharply the striking character of this exceptional immunity from liability of one of the best loss-distributing agencies in our society. Strong pressures have inevitably been at work to push back this immunity,2 and these pressures have had measurable success. Further inroads upon the immunity are likely and desirable. Yet the position and functions of government are to a certain extent unique, and we may never want them to be treated altogether like those of private enterprise. Here we shall examine something of the bases in history, reasoning, and policy of the immunity; sketch its present status in the United States and recent developments in the field; and suggest the possible courses of future development. Inextricably interwoven with all these matters is the question of individual liability of government officers and employees. This, too, will be treated; and something of the inter- connection among the problems will be suggested.
    [Show full text]
  • Torts—Subterranean Trespass
    Buffalo Law Review Volume 4 Number 1 Article 71 10-1-1954 Torts—Subterranean Trespass Vincent A. Delorio Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Vincent A. Delorio, Torts—Subterranean Trespass, 4 Buff. L. Rev. 124 (1954). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol4/iss1/71 This The Court of Appeals Term is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUFFALO LAW REVIEW peals affirmed a dismissal of the complaint at the close of the plain- tiff's case on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sup- port an inference of negligence, although recognizing that in a death action the plaintiff will not be held to as high a degree of proof as required in a case where the complainant may take the stand and personally recount his version of the accident, 2 and noting that the burden of pleading and proving contributory neg- ligence rests on the defendant in such an action.2" opinion by Judge Conway, in which Judge Froes- sel Iconcurred,A dissenting concluded that plaintiff had at least made out a prima facie case, and hence his complaint should not have been 'dismissed. The dissent pointed out that plaintiff need only show facts and circumstances
    [Show full text]
  • CASE NO. 2013-O892
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE NO. 2013-o892 TAIVIAR.A FRIEBEL Plaintiff-Appellee, -vs- VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF MID-OHIO; STEPHEN P. BUEHRER, ADMINISTRATOR, OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION Defendant-Appellants. ON APPEAI. FROM THE FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT; RICHL.AIVD COUNTY, OHIO, CASE NO. 2012-CA-56 MERIT BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, TAMARA FRIEBEL Frank Gallucci, III Esq. (#007268o) Timothy A. Marcovy, Esq. Matthew P. Cincione, Esq. (#0029491) Michael S. Lewis, Esq. PLEVI:N & GALLUCCI WILLACY, LOPRESTI & MARCOVY 55 Public Square, Suite 2222 1468 West Ninth Street, Suite 330 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (216) 861.-o8o4 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant, FAX: (216) 861-5322 Visiting Nurse Association of Nlid-Ohio [email protected] [email protected] Ke-vin J. Reis, Esq. Office of Attorney General Paul W. Flowers, Esq. (#0046625) Assistant Attorney General [COUNSEI., OF RECORD] 3o East Broad St., 17 th Floor PAuL W. FLOWERS Co., L.P.A. Columbus, Ohio 43215 Terminal Tower, 35th Floor Attorney for Adnafnistrator Appellant, 50 Public Square Bureau of Workers' Compensation Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (216) 344-9393 pwWpwfco.com PAUL w.Row-,iPS Co. c r i ii' ` Attorneysfor Plaintiff-Appellee, , t 1 J ^ sf^'v ^ <r fE ^r.4 {..: 50 Public Sq., Ste3500 Tan2aY•a Friebel Cieveland, Ohio 44113 (2'.16) 344-9393 CLERK OF OOU^ ^ so- ^" 0 ^r^'" C Fax: (216) 344-9395 UP%^^;^^f^L 0 0r( ,S,..f a^ ^. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................. ...... ....... ............................................ ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..... ........................................................ ... ... ............... INTRODUCTION . .. .......................................................................... ............ 1 STATEMENT OF THECASE AND FACTS ...................................................................... 3 A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ............. .................................... 3 B. THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of State of Louisiana Court System A
    Name of Preparer: Guy Perrier, Esquire City and State of Firm: Perrier and Lacoste, LLC; New Orleans, LA. Overview of State of Louisiana Court System A. Trial Courts 1. District Courts are the courts of general jurisdiction. Most civil actions will proceed in one of Louisiana’s forty-three judicial district courts. There are no jurisdictional limitations regarding the amount in controversy, except that a right to a jury trial requires a plaintiff to state a claim in excess of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs). 2. Parish Courts, City Courts and Justice of the Peace Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. There is no bright-line amount in controversy limitation applicable to all parish and city courts across the State (the amounts vary based on population), except they all fall below $50,000. Small claims courts generally have jurisdictional limitations below $5,000. Jury trials are not permitted in these courts, as their amount in controversy limitations all fall below the requisite $50,000. B. Appellate Courts 1. Circuit Courts of Appeal- Each Court of Appeal has appellate jurisdiction of all civil matters decided within its circuit, whether the judgment was issued by a District Court, Parish or City Court. The State is divided into five appellate circuits. Each party to an appeal has the right to request oral argument, or the court of appeal can order oral argument sua sponte. Generally, three judges from a particular Circuit decide an appeal, with a majority required to issue a decision. Determinations made by a trial judge are evaluated differently depending on whether they are questions of law or questions of fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Patient Privacy Breach... All in a Day's Work?
    Patient Privacy Breach... All in a Day's Work? 04.12.2019 It is a health care provider’s nightmare – despite extensive HIPAA training and best efforts to hire the right people, one of your staff members has gone rogue with a patient’s information. Whether a receptionist loudly comments on health information in a full waiting room, or a nurse surreptitiously looks up his ex-girlfriend’s health history, a provider may be liable in certain circumstances for the careless, or downright inappropriate, use and disclosure of a patient’s health information. In Virginia, patients’ medical information receives privacy protection under (1) tort law, which provides for civil damages; and (2) state and federal privacy statutes, violations of which may result in civil penalties. However, the measures that health care providers should take to eliminate or reduce their liability exposure are very much the same under both regimes. The provider who prioritizes HIPAA compliance is also simultaneously accounting for state privacy law compliance. The Supreme Court of Virginia has recently weighed in on the matter, in a case that is instructive for providers who are concerned with protecting patient medical information in the hands of their employees. In Parker v. Carilion Clinic, Virginia’s highest court partially revived a lawsuit against a health care provider and its two employees for allegedly disclosing confidential patient information. In her complaint, the plaintiff, Lindsey Parker, alleged that Carilion Clinic and Carilion Healthcare Corporation (hereinafter “Carilion”) and two employees, Christy Davis and Lindsey Young, unlawfully disclosed Ms. Parker’s confidential medical information to an unauthorized acquaintance.[1] Parker alleged that seven months after she was diagnosed with a medical condition at a Carilion-owned OB-GYN, she was awaiting treatment at a Carilion-owned family medicine clinic when she struck up a conversation with a male acquaintance.
    [Show full text]
  • Torts West’S Law School Advisory Board
    Torts West’s Law School Advisory Board JESSE H. CHOPER Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley JOSHUA DRESSLER Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University YALE KAMISAR Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan MARY KAY KANE Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law LARRY D. KRAMER President, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation JONATHAN R. MACEY Professor of Law, Yale Law School ARTHUR R. MILLER University Professor, New York University Formerly Bruce Bromley Professor of Law, Harvard University GRANT S. NELSON Professor of Law, Pepperdine University Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles A. BENJAMIN SPENCER Professor of Law, Washington & Lee University School of Law JAMES J. WHITE Professor of Law, University of Michigan BLACK LETTER OUTLINES Torts by Edward J. Kionka Professor of Law Emeritus Southern Illinois University at Carbondale FIFTH EDITION Mat #41150408 This publication was created to provide you with accurate and authoritative information concerning the subject matter covered; however, this publication was not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional. Nothing contained herein is intended or written for the purpose of 1) avoiding penalties imposed under the federal Internal Revenue Code, or 2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
    [Show full text]