strategicdefenselaw

New Frontier for Electronic Discovery

strategicdefenselaw — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 05:54:54 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck approves use of computer-assisted review in electronically stored information case. The judicial opinion is the first ever as parties seek efficient and cost-effective ways to handle e-discovery in litigation.

Clarity Expands E-Discovery Consulting (prweb.com)
Electronic Discovery: Premises, Paradoxes and Paradigm Shifts (rwdmc.wordpress.com)
Buying in to Electronic Discovery – Epiq and Symantec (beta.fool.com)
Legal Hydra? Top Ten Tips To Become More Proficient With Machine-Assisted Review (forbes.com)
Breaking News: Costs Versus Quality In Electronic Discovery Document Reviews (justbelowthelaw.com)
eDiscovery Process (markjowen.wordpress.com)
Predictive Coding and E-Discovery (ritaheimes.com)
The Future Has Arrived: For the First Time, Judge Orders Predictive Coding in a Federal Case (abovethelaw.com)
Discovery Isn’t Boxes Anymore: Jessica Ross of Latham & Watkins on e-discovery (ritaheimes.com)
What Technology-Assisted Electronic Discovery Teaches Us About The Role Of Humans In Technology (forbes.com)

Pumping Not Protected

strategicdefenselaw — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:26:45 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

On February 2, 2012, Judge Lynn Hughes, Southern District of Texas granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The Court’s opinion announces that pumping breast milk is not protected. Anti-discrimination laws prevent an employer from discriminating against a woman arising out of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical condition. An employer’s action related to pumping breast milk is not sex discrimination because it is not related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical condition. Pumping breast milk pre-supposes that pregnancy and childbirth are over. Thus, the Court decided no medical condition remained after the mother had the baby.

For the moment, the definition of sex discrimination has not been expanded to include pumping breast milk. An appeal is anticipated on this issue.

Firing for using breast pump isn’t sex discrimination, judge rules (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
TX Federal Judge Nixes EEOC Breast Milk Pumping Case, Finds No COA re ‘Lactation Discrimination’ | ABA Journal | Martha Neil | 02/8/12 (vinhsulaw.wordpress.com)

Colorado Worker Allowed to Receive Pension and Unemployment Benefits

strategicdefenselaw — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:03:44 +0000

On December 22, 2011, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the Colorado Industrial Claim Appeals Panel’s decision to deny unemployment benefits to a worker was incorrect. Claimant Hopkins previously worked for the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment before retiring on July 31, 2001.

During her time of employment, Hopkins and the department contributed to a pension plan. Hopkins received pension payments since August 1, 2001. Like many retirees, Hopkins returned to work for the department from April 2009 through August 2009. During this second period of employment, neither Hopkins nor the department contributed to a pension plan. Apparently, Hopkins, through no fault of her own, lost her employment with the department in August 2009.

Initially, Hopkins was granted unemployment benefits because the department did not contribute to Hopkins’ pension during the second employment period (the relevant period for granting unemployment benefits). The department appealed the hearing officer’s decision which was reversed by the Panel. The Panel, interpreting a Colorado state statute, decided Hopkins was not entitled to unemployment benefits because she was receiving a pension, albeit, that the same employer contributed during her previous employment period with the department.

The Colorado Court of Appeals announced the Panel’s decision was incorrect because Hopkins was receiving a pension the department contributed to prior to her retirement in 2001. The department did not contribute to a pension during the period of time used to determine unemployment eligibility, i.e., the second employment period. The Colorado Court of Appeals essentially decided that a prior pension cannot be used as an offset, under Colorado law, to unemployment benefits.

The Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision can be found here http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2011/11CA0239.pdf.

Unemployment applications lowest since April ’08 (sfgate.com)
Pension Department (tfollowers.com)

Holding out for More Fails

strategicdefenselaw — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:59:52 +0000

: Image via Wikipedia

A plaintiff claiming entitlement to underinsured motorist benefits denied because he did not settle with the responsible party before attempting to make a claim for underinsured benefits on his own policy. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a plaintiff has to settle his/her claim with the liability carrier before underinsured motorist benefits are payable in Zbenger v. Allied Insurance Company. The lack of ripeness prevails and shows that it is not always beneficial to hold out for more. (http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/10-1421/10-1421-2011-12-06.html).

Health Care Reform Implementation Guidelines – Government & regulations

strategicdefenselaw — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 02:41:57 +0000

Occasionally, we will post news from other sources that seem helpful. This week there is a particularly useful article regarding health care reform to consider while we wait to learn the outcome of significant litigation regarding the validity of the law. The U.S. Supreme Court recently announced that it will review the constitutionality of the health care reform law.

Health Care Reform Implementation Guidelines – Government & regulations.

Can Municipalities Collect Sales Tax on Medical Records Bought for Litigation Purposes

strategicdefenselaw — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 05:04:36 +0000

Tough economic times leave businesses and government entities looking to maximize revenue in creative ways not before imagined. At least in Denver, the answer is no In Treece, Alfrey, Musat & Bosworth, PC v. Department of Finance, City and County of Denver (No. 10CA0026, November 23, 2011), the Colorado Court of Appeals decided that a law firm that obtains medical records during the course of litigation does not have to pay sales tax under the Denver Municipal Code. Law firms often obtain medical records during litigation and such medical records belong to the law firm, the client, or the insurance company involved. Typically, hospitals and other healthcare providers are not in the business of “selling” medical records and do not charge sales tax on providing photocopies of such. You may find the court’s decision at http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8295&courtid=1.

UNOCAL MADE EXAMPLE IN COLORADO CLASS CERTIFICATION

strategicdefenselaw — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 03:11:45 +0000

The Colorado Supreme Court made three major determinations in Jackson v. Unocal, 09SC668, slip op. (October 31, 2011). First, the court decided that a party seeking class certification does not have a preponderance of the evidence burden of proof. This decision is, largely, based on the distinctions between the federal rules of civil procedure and the Colorado rules of civil procedure governing class certification. In Colorado, class certification, according to the state high court is merely a case management tool for the trial court. A Colorado trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to certify a class. A trial court must rigorously analyze the evidence in deciding to grant class certification. Second, a trial court may analyze substantive legal and factual issues for the purpose of making a determination whether to certify a class, even where such issues overlap with the merits. A trial court’s class certification may not prejudice the merits of the case, i.e., a trial court may not decide whether plaintiff’s overall claim is valid just whether plaintiff or the class representative satisfy the requirements for class certification. Third, the court refused to require trial court’s to hold Schreck (or Daubert) type hearings regarding expert witness testimony in support of or in contravention of class certification. Expert testimony may be considered by the trial court to decide to class certification and the trial court may not decide whether the expert testimony is ultimately admissible or determinative of the merits of a case.

The full opinion may be found at the following link: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SC668.pdf.

Newly formed Dixon Law Firm, LLC Focusing on Insurance Defense and Civil Litigation

strategicdefenselaw — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:32:07 +0000

Denver attorney Christina L. Dixon is pleased to announce the formation of The Dixon Law Firm, LLC.The Dixon Law Firm is a minority and woman owned business. Christina Dixon and The Firm will continue to specialize in defending insurance companies and their insured’s in tort and contract claims, including insurance coverage, first-and third-party bad faith, and employer liability. Managing Member, Christina Dixon has successfully defended insurers and their insureds in a wide of range of cases. She regularly handles first-and third-party bad faith cases, coverage litigation, employer liability, and catastrophic losses. Christina continues to act as litigation and monitoring counsel for insurers involving multiple lines.

The Dixon Law Firm may be contacted at 303-999-0118 or www.strategicdefenselaw.com.

Email us at info@strategicdefenselaw.com

strategicdefenselaw

New Frontier for Electronic Discovery

Related articles

Pumping Not Protected

Related articles

Colorado Worker Allowed to Receive Pension and Unemployment Benefits

Related articles

Holding out for More Fails

Health Care Reform Implementation Guidelines – Government & regulations

Can Municipalities Collect Sales Tax on Medical Records Bought for Litigation Purposes

UNOCAL MADE EXAMPLE IN COLORADO CLASS CERTIFICATION

Newly formed Dixon Law Firm, LLC Focusing on Insurance Defense and Civil Litigation