Actually, I should not say the Oregon Supreme Court decision is awful because I have absolutely no idea whether the medical malpractice statute of limitations is constitutional. But I know that the law is awful. Hopefully the Oregon legislature will look hard at the question of whether you should be able to lose your rights while you are a minor, particuarly in birth injury cases.

West Virginia already has a similar law in medical malpractice cases. Other jurisdictions should follow suit because of the insanity of reporters reporting on the amount of the ad damnum clause - which has absolutely nothing to do with the true damages sought - was an embarrassment to all lawyers handling personal injury cases.

Clearly, the key has been "medical malpractice reform" but the kind of malpractice reform that even plaintiffs' medical malpractice lawyers largely believe is a good law: the requirement that a doctor certify to a reasonable degree of medical probability that medical malpractice caused the plaintiff injury.

The median compensation in Minnesota is somewhat below the national median of $38,179 and I suspect Minneapolis, St. Paul and Rochester verdicts inflate that average a bit. But because Minnesota has no fault coverage (or PIP) in car accident cases up to $40,000 ($20,000 for medical bills and $20,000 for economic loss) that is subject to the collateral source rule, Minnesota personal injury lawyers tend to few small cases in Minnesota. In other words, Minnesota law provides that personal injury awards are offset by collateral source payments (if the source of reimbursement does not have a subrogation right). So the gap between the Minnesota median verdict and the national median verdict is probably wider than the numbers reflect. Not surprisingly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found Minnesota juries to be the "15th best" which means the 15th worst for personal injury victims.

Interestingly, Minnesota personal injury recovery probability is 67% compared to the national average of 53%. I would think that the fewer amount of smaller claims would lead to a lower recovery probability because Minnesota personal injury lawyers bring less smaller cases which typically do not involve a liability dispute which you would think would actually lower the recovery probability. Accordingly, it is fair to infer from the data that Minnesota juries are inclined to believe Minnesota plaintiff's claims as to how/why the accident/medical malpractice/injury occurred.

Although Minnesota juries are rather conservative, the big complaint that defendants' lawyers and drug and device companies have about Minnesota is that its laws are favorable to personal injury victims. Last year, there was an ABA Journal article, Lawsuits Travel Up North: Land of Ten Thousand Lakes Is Flooded With Thousands of Out-of-State Filings, that discussed the benefits of filing products liability claims in Minnesota, including Minnesota reasonable six-year statute of limitations in products liability cases. While lawyers rarely have seriously injured clients in a car accident that come to them years after the cause of action arose, this is a far more common occurrance in products liability cases because it sometimes takes a while for people to understand the connection between the negligence and their injuries, even if that information is available under the "know or have reason to know standard."

The average nursing home netted $248,047 in 2006, a 233% increase from 2004. Charlene Harrington, the California studies lead author, told the Los Angeles Times, "They got so much money, they should have been able to do something."

You would think.

It is difficult to argue with the court’s ruling in this case. While certainly the risk of disease from tobacco creates a greater risk for users, a mere threat of future harm probably should not be the basis for a claim in the tobacco cases. He or and court did not address this question, but I think it boils down to the question of whether the harm is expected to be imminent and how likely the harm is to occur. Certainly, you would think that the court would take a different posture in, for example, the Medtronic cases where the risk was more imminent.

But that explanation does not quite explain it because 400,000 people are dying a year from smoking and far less will die from Medtronic’s alleged negligence. I think a larger factor in the Oregon courts conclusion is that all of us believe on some level that smokers are also culpable by assuming the risks that they had incurred.

My guess is that this new rule is not going to spin because the Georgia Supreme Court will not agree. Practically, it may be a bad thing for injury victims if they do, because it would not be surprising to see Georgia Legislature respond by extending the cap on damages to old tort victims as opposed to singling out victims of medical malpractice.

The focus of the heparin cases has been on Baxter, which supplies approximately half of the heparin used in the United States. But Scientific Protein Laboratories supplied the active ingredient in heparin for both Baxter and Covidien.

I don't know enough about the timing of the Corvidien withdrawal and this man's use of heparin to know whether this is also a failure to recall case. But if this man did receive heparin after others had withdrawn heparin from the market, you can bet Corvidien's lawyers will not be racing to the courthouse steps to try that case.

I don't think history shows that Delaware juries are unreasonable. But many Delaware laws both directly and indirectly discourage tort lawsuits. One of my favorite Delaware laws involves lawyer's fees in medical malpractice cases. Delaware does not place a limit on the damages a claimant may recover. But it caps plaintiffs' medical malpractice lawyers' fees at 35 percent of the first $100,000 in damages, 25 percent of the next $100,000, and 10 percent of any remaining award.

This law is great for those medical malpractice victims where they are able to find a lawyer to represent them. But many lawyers do not take medical malpractice cases in Delaware simply because of the decreased fees. It is not unlike Delaware passing a law raising minimum wage to $20 an hour. Some people would really fare well but others would lose their job. With this medical malpractice law, people lose the opportunity to bring just claims.

Moreover, the limit on fees decreases the overall quality of Delaware medical malpractice lawyers. Conversely, because the possible damage awards are unchanged and the exposure is there, negligent doctors and their insurance companies can find the best malpractice trial lawyers to provide their defense, leaving a playing field between doctors and victims that is far from level.

*The new IPO (Legal Process Outsourcing) News Blog has an interesting post on the increasing demand for lawyers in India. Demand for lawyers in India has risen such that some lawyers are seeing salary increases of up to 100%. I'm not sure that a lot of personal injury lawyers are going to come out of India for obvious logistical reasons but I would not be surprised if support staff from India becomes far more common over the next 10 years.

*The Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog has a post on a defense medical malpractice lawyer who questioned the fairness of jurors in the entire city of Baltimore.

*Dave Swanner's always excellent South Carolina Trial Blog suggests giving employees Friday afternoons off. This is a great idea but I worry about taking care of new and existing clients who call in on Friday afternoon.

*The Illinois Trial Practice Weblog has a post on the sanctions incurred when one lawyer could not control his client in deposition. These people rarely sneak up on lawyers; you can usually spot a client that you cannot control from a mile away. Obviously, there is a sliding scale of what a lawyer will tolerate depending upon the size of the case but there has to be some sort of minimum hurdle of decency a client has to be able to advance. This client did not meet that hurdle and 99% of the time, this is foreseeable to the lawyer who agreed to provide representation.

*My Shingle has a blog post about Carolyn Elefant's new book Solo by Choice. I have not read the book but the reviews have been excellent.

*The Birmingham Injury Blog has a post on mandatory arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts. This issue is not going away. Some courts are going to acknowledge the insanity of limiting a patient's rights given the unequal bargaining power of the nursing home. Other states are going to say that a contract is a contract.

*Also from Alabama (and also a Justia blog), the Alabama Product Injury Lawyer Blog has a blog post on drug companies and their propensity to ghostwrite studies about their drugs or medical devices and then having doctors agree to author the study to lend credence to what is often the propaganda of the drug companies.

*The New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog and the Maryland Lawyer Blog posts on a blog called ER Stories, which appears to be made up stories of malpractice cases from an undisclosed doctor. To make it fun for the whole family, the New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog post title is Malpractice, Oral Sex, and Urban Legends.

I hope these posts are of interest. For the best and consistent lawyer blog roundups on the Internet of interest to injury and malpractice lawyers, visit Brooks Schuelke Personal Injury Law Round-Up #59.

One backdoor around the exclusivity of the workers' compensation states in many states, like Florida or Texas, for example, is if the employer is grossly negligent, they can be a claim for negligence.

In Vermont, a Chayer v. Ethan Allen, plaintiff was employed at the Ethan Allen's furniture manufacturing plant in Orleans, Vermont. Plaintiff worked on a double-end tenoning machine which is essentially a conveyor belt on which furniture rests as they move forward the machine’s saw blades. Plaintiff inadvertently placed his hand on the belt and his hand caught in a “pinch point” and was pulled into the blades which cut off his hand. He had tried to turn off the machine’s shutoff switch but was unable to do so. Plaintiff personal injury lawyer claimed that Ethan Allen knew and discussed this very risk and did not take the necessary precautions. Specifically, Ethan Allen knew that the switches, including the shutoff switch which was critical in this case, were located in such a way as to pose a danger.

Last week, Vermont Supreme Court went in a different direction, holding that the exclusivity of workers' compensation bars an injured worker's claims for gross negligence against an employer-employee safety committee The court found that all of Plaintiff's claims under Vermont law amount to "nothing beyond a breach of the employer’s nondelegable duty to maintain a safe workplace."

Another thing I found interesting was the Plaintiff's lawyer's creative effort to backdoor the workers' compensation laws by suing the employer-employee safety committee. How that would work from a liability standpoint, as the Vermont Supreme Court points out, is difficult. Would committee members be liable individually? If so, would dissenting or abstaining members also be responsible for the committee's decisions? If so, how was he or she negligent. The idea is a stretch because it is hard to think that a committee with no real financial power could liable for failing to convince Ethan Allen to do the right thing. But, again, this Vermont lawyer was in a tough spot trying to get a recovery in this accident case. I doubt there was a serious settlement offer on the table. Obviously, given that the man hand was amputated, this case underscores the weakness of the workers' comp remedy in cases where the employer negligently caused the Plaintiff's injury.

Of course, when you read this opinions, you are required to assume all facts most favorable to Plaintiff. So Ethan Allen might have good explanations for all of these allegations. Still, it did not leave me with a fuzzy feeling toward one of my favorite furniture stores.

To read the entire opinion, click here.

Louisiana lawyers Daniel Barks, Richard Fewell Jr. and Dion Young represented the family in this defective products lawsuit.

Plaintiff’s lawyer Ted Lyon told reporters after the verdict that U-Haul had faulty emergency break and worn down gears. The Plaintiff rented a U-Haul to help his daughter move. When he got out of the truck, it started rolling backwards and knocked him down. Now the formerly active retiree cannot walk and requires around-the-clock care.

In 2006, 805 medical malpractice claims that resolved in Oklahoma. The malpractice cases was dismissed in 59, or almost 70%. Of the remaining medical malpractice case, 181 settled and 20 went to trial. The average claim settlement or award in 2006 was $257,887. The total amount paid in settlements and verdicts was just shy of $50 million.