Publications & Presentations – Carlock Copeland https://carlockcopeland.com Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:44:05 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Sarah Wetmore Butler Speaking at The South Carolina Bar’s SC Construction Conference – December 7, 2018 https://carlockcopeland.com/publications/sarah-wetmore-butler-speaking-south-carolina-bars-sc-construction-conference-december-7-2018/ Thu, 06 Dec 2018 20:45:41 +0000 https://carlockcopeland.com/?post_type=publications&p=17197 Sarah Wetmore Butler is set to speak at the South Carolina Bar’s SC Construction Conference on Friday, December 7, 2018.  Sarah will co-present the session Balancing Professional Ethics with Client Desires, starting at 2:30 p.m. The South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division and the South Carolina Bar Construction Law Section sponsor this year’s 2018 Construction…

The post Sarah Wetmore Butler Speaking at The South Carolina Bar’s SC Construction Conference – December 7, 2018 appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Sarah Wetmore Butler is set to speak at the South Carolina Bar’s SC Construction Conference on Friday, December 7, 2018.  Sarah will co-present the session Balancing Professional Ethics with Client Desires, starting at 2:30 p.m.

The South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division and the South Carolina Bar Construction Law Section sponsor this year’s 2018 Construction Law Conference in Charleston, SC,  at the Charleston Marriott. This powerful, practical, and diverse program will provide the skills and knowledge to build a complete construction lawyer! This year’s program focuses on relevant topics for lawyers practicing construction law, including construction litigators and construction defects lawyers.

Please click here for more information on this conference or to register.

The post Sarah Wetmore Butler Speaking at The South Carolina Bar’s SC Construction Conference – December 7, 2018 appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Practice Group Pays $125k to Settle HIPAA Claim – Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch https://carlockcopeland.com/publications/practice-group-pays-125k-settle-hipaa-claim-health-law-regulation-update-blog-post-eric-frisch/ Tue, 27 Nov 2018 15:07:08 +0000 https://carlockcopeland.com/?post_type=publications&p=17167 Recent Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch. A Connecticut physician group recently agreed to pay $125,000 to settle a claim of “reckless disregard” for a patient’s privacy rights. The group contacted the local television station to give a statement about a dispute between its patient and one of its doctors. A…

The post Practice Group Pays $125k to Settle HIPAA Claim – Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Recent Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch.

A Connecticut physician group recently agreed to pay $125,000 to settle a claim of “reckless disregard” for a patient’s privacy rights. The group contacted the local television station to give a statement about a dispute between its patient and one of its doctors. A reporter contacted the doctor, who “impermissibly disclosed the patient’s protected health information.” The Office of Civil Rights investigated and concluded that the doctor had shown “reckless disregard” after the doctor was instructed by the group’s privacy officer to respond with “no comment.” The group failed to discipline the doctor or take corrective action.

Take-home: while a patient has an unfettered right to disclose their private health information in public and to the media, a covered entity does not. There is no “media exception” to the Privacy Rule.

To read the report and corrective action plan, please click here.

For more information on our Health Law and Regulation Update Blog, please click here.

The post Practice Group Pays $125k to Settle HIPAA Claim – Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Georgia Court of Appeals Holds that Metastatic Cancer is New Injury – Health Law & Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch https://carlockcopeland.com/publications/georgia-court-appeals-holds-metastatic-cancer-new-injury-health-law-regulation-update-blog-post-eric-frisch/ Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:51:54 +0000 https://carlockcopeland.com/?post_type=publications&p=17145 Recent Health Law & Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch. The Georgia Court of Appeals has held that metastatic cancer constitutes a “new injury” for purposes of calculating the statute of limitations. Plaintiff went to an obstetrician/gynecologist in August 2013 with complaints of abnormal bleeding from a large uterine fibroid mass. Plaintiff and the…

The post Georgia Court of Appeals Holds that Metastatic Cancer is New Injury – Health Law & Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Recent Health Law & Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch.

The Georgia Court of Appeals has held that metastatic cancer constitutes a “new injury” for purposes of calculating the statute of limitations. Plaintiff went to an obstetrician/gynecologist in August 2013 with complaints of abnormal bleeding from a large uterine fibroid mass. Plaintiff and the doctor discuss treatment options, including robotic hysterectomy. The doctor then referred the patient to a gynecological oncologist.

The oncologist examined the patient and reviewed films. In November 2013, the oncologist reported to the obstetrician that there was a “very low suspicion” for malignancy. The obstetrician proceeded with the robotic procedure on December 13, 2013 based on the oncologist’s report. During the procedure, the fibroids were cut (“morcellated”) and not removed intact. Pathology reports showed the fibroids were cancerous. Post-operative CT and PET scans were negative until October 24, 2014, when the patient presented with pelvic tumors. The patient passed away on May 19, 2015.

On December 9, 2015, the patient’s husband was appointed administrator of her estate. He then filed suit against the obstetrician, the practice group (Wellstar Physicians), and named several “John Doe” defendants. In April 2017, plaintiff filed an amended complaint to name the oncologist and substitute him in for one of the John Doe defendants.

The oncologist moved to dismiss on the grounds of expiration of the two year statute of limitations. The trial court converted the motion to a partial motion for summary judgment and held that the “new injury” exception to the statute of limitations did not apply.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the evidence showed the “new injury” exception did apply.  The general rule in misdiagnosis cases is that the misdiagnosis is the injury because the plaintiff suffers pain and incurs medical expenses from that point forward. In some cases, however, when the injury from the misdiagnosis is relatively benign or treatable but then develops into a more debilitating or “less treatable” condition, the injury is the “subsequent development of the other condition.” In this case, the Court held that the metastasis led to “a substantially reduced likelihood of her survival” and was a result of the morcellation, rather than removal of the fibroids intact.

The Court also held that the statute of limitations was tolled until the administrator was appointed and that the amendment related back to the filing of the original complaint.

The case is Hayes v. Hines, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 615 (Oct. 26, 2018).

For more information on or to subscribe to our Health Law And Regulation Update Blog, please click here.

The post Georgia Court of Appeals Holds that Metastatic Cancer is New Injury – Health Law & Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Shannon Sprinkle Presented Sweating the Small Stuff: Conflict Waivers and Confidentiality Issues CLE for Atlanta Bar Association – December 6, 2018 https://carlockcopeland.com/publications/shannon-sprinkle-presenting-sweating-small-stuff-conflict-waivers-confidentiality-issues-cle-atlanta-bar-association-december-6-2018/ Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:15:43 +0000 https://carlockcopeland.com/?post_type=publications&p=17143 Shannon Sprinkle co-presented Sweating the Small Stuff: Conflict Waivers and Confidentiality Issues at the Atlanta Bar Association’s CLE by the Hour on December 6, 2018.  This full day CLE program, held at King & Spalding, was designed to allow attorneys the opportunity to obtain Trial Practice, Ethics, and Professionalism credits prior to the annual CLE deadline. The…

The post Shannon Sprinkle Presented Sweating the Small Stuff: Conflict Waivers and Confidentiality Issues CLE for Atlanta Bar Association – December 6, 2018 appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Shannon Sprinkle co-presented Sweating the Small Stuff: Conflict Waivers and Confidentiality Issues at the Atlanta Bar Association’s CLE by the Hour on December 6, 2018.  This full day CLE program, held at King & Spalding, was designed to allow attorneys the opportunity to obtain Trial Practice, Ethics, and Professionalism credits prior to the annual CLE deadline. The seminar covered a variety of legal issues using panelists and interactive discussions of real-life scenarios to provide interesting and practical education.

For more information on the Atlanta Bar Association’s CLE offerings, please click here.

 

The post Shannon Sprinkle Presented Sweating the Small Stuff: Conflict Waivers and Confidentiality Issues CLE for Atlanta Bar Association – December 6, 2018 appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Georgia Court of Appeals Affirms Plaintiffs’ Verdict in Gross Negligence ER Case – Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch https://carlockcopeland.com/publications/georgia-court-appeals-affirms-plaintiffs-verdict-gross-negligence-er-case-health-law-regulation-update-blog-post-eric-frisch/ Mon, 01 Oct 2018 15:17:15 +0000 https://carlockcopeland.com/?post_type=publications&p=17091 Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch. In the second appellate version of Southwestern Emergency Physicians, P.C. v. Quinney, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed a $4.5 million verdict for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued Southwestern Emergency Physicians, a doctor, and the hospital where the care encounter took place. Plaintiffs alleged that the…

The post Georgia Court of Appeals Affirms Plaintiffs’ Verdict in Gross Negligence ER Case – Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch.

In the second appellate version of Southwestern Emergency Physicians, P.C. v. Quinney, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed a $4.5 million verdict for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued Southwestern Emergency Physicians, a doctor, and the hospital where the care encounter took place. Plaintiffs alleged that the negligence of the physician and two non-party nurses caused Mr. Quinney to become a paraplegic.

On appeal, the main issues were whether the trial court erred in permitting Plaintiffs to argue both gross negligence and the “ordinary” professional malpractice standard of care in light of the previous appellate decision in the case, whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the gross negligence standard applied to non-parties for purposes of apportionment, and whether the trial court should have listed the hospital as a separate entity from its employee nurses for purposes of apportionment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict, denying each of the grounds asserted.

In the first appellate case, the defense moved for summary judgment on the issue of “ordinary” professional malpractice because the care provided arose solely out of emergency medical care to which the gross negligence standard applies under Section 51-1-29.5. On appeal, the Court held that the gross negligence standard applied because “emergency medical services” had been rendered, but ruled there were fact disputes about whether the doctor was grossly negligent. After remand and finishing discovery, the defense moved to exclude any testimony or argument about anything other than gross negligence. The trial court denied the motion in part because two defense experts had testified since the first appeal that Mr. Quinney was stable and that the jury should hear the evidence and then decide whether to apply the gross negligence standard or the “ordinary” standard of care. The defense then stated that it intended to discuss gross negligence in opening and Plaintiffs argued they should be allowed to discuss ordinary negligence if that was the case. The trial court agreed and gave “careful” preliminary and jury instructions that were “adjusted to the evidence, apt, and a correct statement of the law” regarding gross negligence. In addition, during the charge conference, Plaintiffs withdrew charges related to “ordinary negligence” leaving only gross negligence as the issue. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to preclude any mention to ordinary negligence.

Next, the defense argued that the trial court should not have instructed the gross negligence standard as it applied to apportioning fault to non-parties, such as the individual nurses. After Plaintiffs withdrew the ordinary negligence jury charge in the charge conference, the defense argued for the charge to apply to the non-parties on the theory that apportionment only requires a finding of fault, not liability. The Court held that the duty the non-parties owed to Mr. Quinney was one of “slight care” (gross negligence) and that the defense was required to prove they did not provide such care if the jury was to apportion to them. Notably, the jury did apportion to two non-parties.

Lastly, the defense argued the hospital should have also been listed as a separate party for apportionment. The Court held that because the defense did not offer any evidence that the hospital would be liable independent of its role as employer of the two non-party nurses who were listed on the verdict form, there was no error.

Take-home: this case highlights the complicated nature of trying a case under the “gross negligence” standard and with apportionment. These cases are highly fact specific and it can be challenging to get the right jury charges for all of the scenarios that might be presented.

The case is Southwestern Emergency Physicians, P.C. v. Quinney, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 538

For more information on our Health Law and Regulation Blog, please click here.

The post Georgia Court of Appeals Affirms Plaintiffs’ Verdict in Gross Negligence ER Case – Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
It’s Not Always Just a Matter of Time, Plaintiff’s Attorneys are Finding Ways Around the Statute of Repose, but There is Hope for the Defense – Article in The CLM’s Claims College Magazine, Fall 2018 https://carlockcopeland.com/publications/not-always-just-matter-time-plaintiffs-attorneys-finding-ways-around-statute-repose-hope-defense/ Mon, 01 Oct 2018 14:32:02 +0000 https://carlockcopeland.com/?post_type=publications&p=17097 It’s Not Always Just a Matter of Time, Plaintiff’s Attorneys are Finding Ways Around the Statute of Repose, but There is Hope for the Defense – Recent Article in The CLM’s Construction Claims Magazine, Fall 2018 edition. – Co-Authored by Laura Paton, Ed Anglin and Andy Yoho. Within nearly every answer filed in a South…

The post It’s Not Always Just a Matter of Time, Plaintiff’s Attorneys are Finding Ways Around the Statute of Repose, but There is Hope for the Defense – Article in The CLM’s Claims College Magazine, Fall 2018 appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
It’s Not Always Just a Matter of Time, Plaintiff’s Attorneys are Finding Ways Around the Statute of Repose, but There is Hope for the Defense – Recent Article in The CLM’s Construction Claims Magazine, Fall 2018 edition. – Co-Authored by Laura Paton, Ed Anglin and Andy Yoho.

Within nearly every answer filed in a South Carolina construction defect claim, the defense of “Statute of Repose” will inevitably be found.

South Carolina’s Statute of Repose, codified as S.C. Code Ann. Section 15-3-640, acts as a bar to claims brought a designated amount of time after substantial completion of an improvement of real property. This bars claims even if they are discovered after the given time period expires. Essentially, as noted in Holly Woods Ass’n of Residence Owners v. Hiller, the statute provides a substantive right to those involved in the improvement of real property to be free from liability after a certain time period.

However, plaintiffs throughout the state are, more often than not, successful in prosecuting construction defect claims involving structures that fall outside the statute-of-repose period. This reality presents unique challenges for those defending contractors, subcontractors, and design professionals as the age of a project not only may manifest in a greater degree of damage, but also often results in the unavailability of records and witnesses necessary to defend the claim. Moreover, the current construct presents the risk of unending potential exposure for construction professionals and their insurers.

South Carolina statute states, “No actions to recover damages based upon or arising out of the defective or unsafe condition of an improvement to real property may be brought more than eight years after substantial completion of the improvement.” But, under the statute, defendants who are “guilty” of fraud, gross negligence, or recklessness in the provision of materials, development of property, or in performing or furnishing designs, plans, specifications, or supervision of construction are barred from pleading the Statute of Repose as a defense.

In practical terms, this provision has handcuffed defendants seeking dismissal under the Statute of Repose—just as the statute forms a part of every defendant’s answer, it is rare to find a construction defect complaint that does not allege some form of fraud, gross negligence, or recklessness. While a bald assertion of gross negligence should not survive summary judgment, under South Carolina’s statute, the violation of a building code may be admissible as evidence of fraud, gross negligence, or recklessness. Accordingly, when faced with a dispositive motion, plaintiffs more often than not survive a challenge under the Statute of Repose.

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is inappropriate where a question of fact is present. Therefore, under South Carolina law, a plaintiff may file suit on a project more than eight years after substantial completion if gross negligence is alleged and a question of fact can be generated through the presentation of at least a scintilla of evidence of a code violation. To put it plainly, obtaining dismissal in South Carolina under the Statute of Repose can be a high hurdle to clear.

As if it was not difficult enough to obtain dismissal of a stale claim under the statute, plaintiffs have yet another arrow in their quiver to defeat this defense. Under South Carolina’s version of the statute, a defendant is barred from pleading the Statute of Repose if a claim of property damage is not discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of its occurrence, and is the result of exposure to some toxic or harmful or injury producing substance, element, or particle—including radiation—over a period of time as opposed to resulting from a sudden and fortuitous trauma.

Many South Carolina plaintiff’s lawyers (and their experts) have fashioned a clever argument that, when dealing with improvements to real property, water is a hazardous substance, latent in nature, and not discoverable at the time of the occurrence. Accordingly, in cases where exposure to water intrusion over time has led to water damage, rot, and microbial growth, plaintiff’s lawyers have successfully argued the Statute of Limitations is inapplicable, thus paving the way for bringing and recovering damages on what should be a time-barred claim.

Of course, there are exceptions. In a recent ruling by United States District Court Judge Richard Gergel, the court granted summary judgment as to all claims filed by the plaintiff against the defendant general contractor except for the claim of gross negligence. The court, in Hampton Hall LLC v. Chapman Coyle Chapman & Assoc. Architects, AIA, Inc. and Choate Construction Co, determined that the Statute of Repose defeated all claims excluding gross negligence because the property was substantially completed in 2007 and the claim was not filed until May 12, 2017, well after the eight-year Statute of Repose had expired.

The plaintiff moved for the court to reconsider its decision, arguing that the properties at issue were never “substantially completed” because the defendants violated the building code. The court dismissed that argument, noting that the South Carolina code specifically provides that violations of the building code do not constitute “gross negligence” for the purpose of the exception to the Statute of Repose.

Likewise, the court quickly disposed of the plaintiff’s argument that the contract language should trump the certificate of occupancy as the deciding factor for determining the date of substantial completion. Most importantly, the court addressed the plaintiff’s argument that potential intentional concealment of causes of action or fraud should trump the Statute of Repose as to claims other than gross negligence.

First, the court determined that if the plaintiff could prove the existence of gross negligence, the plaintiff would still be able to fully recover on that claim. Further, the court agreed with the plaintiff that if the defense had intentionally concealed simple negligence (not gross negligence), then the defense would not be able to assert the Statute of Repose. However, the court ruled that such an argument is factual; not legal. Moreover, the court ruled that an argument of concealment was absolutely incompatible with the established facts and the plaintiff never argued that such concealment occurred in opposition to the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.

Judge Gergel’s orders in Hampton Hall provide a roadmap for savvy defense attorneys seeking to minimize their clients’ exposures. While some might question the utility of partial summary judgment, a brief review of the elements and allowable damages of the claims is instructive. Attorneys left defending only a gross negligence claim—rather than breach of contract, breach of warranties, or violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (which carries the potential for treble damages and attorney’s fees)—are much better positioned to mediate or try a case.

Claims professionals and their clients should take a pragmatic approach to litigation in South Carolina. Despite the best efforts of the construction defects defense bar, plaintiff’s attorneys are forever inventing new arguments to circumvent valid Statute-of-Repose arguments. Further, years of litigation regarding the exceptions to the Statute of Repose have left the courts with confusing case law to muddle through. However, with careful planning, a smart defense attorney may utilize the statute to substantially limit a client’s exposure and, ultimately, extricate her client from South Carolina’s perpetual liability trap

 

For more information on The CLM or their Construction Claims Magazine, please click here.

The post It’s Not Always Just a Matter of Time, Plaintiff’s Attorneys are Finding Ways Around the Statute of Repose, but There is Hope for the Defense – Article in The CLM’s Claims College Magazine, Fall 2018 appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Shannon Sprinkle Moderated Presentation at ABA 2018 Fall National Legal Malpractice Conference in Las Vegas, NV https://carlockcopeland.com/publications/shannon-sprinkle-moderated-presentation-aba-2018-fall-national-legal-malpractice-conference-las-vegas-nv/ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 20:08:26 +0000 https://carlockcopeland.com/?post_type=publications&p=17073 Shannon Sprinkle moderated Tripartite Typhoon: Malpractice, Bad Faith and Stormy Seas at the ABA 2018 National Legal Malpractice Conference, September 26th-28th in Las Vegas, NV. Shannon’s session, which explored the risks associated with excess exposure, was Thursday, September 27th. The session was well-attended and received publicity from Law360 and others. For more information on the ABA’s…

The post Shannon Sprinkle Moderated Presentation at ABA 2018 Fall National Legal Malpractice Conference in Las Vegas, NV appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Shannon Sprinkle moderated Tripartite Typhoon: Malpractice, Bad Faith and Stormy Seas at the ABA 2018 National Legal Malpractice Conference, September 26th-28th in Las Vegas, NV. Shannon’s session, which explored the risks associated with excess exposure, was Thursday, September 27th. The session was well-attended and received publicity from Law360 and others.

For more information on the ABA’s 2018 National Legal Malpractice Conference, please click here.

The post Shannon Sprinkle Moderated Presentation at ABA 2018 Fall National Legal Malpractice Conference in Las Vegas, NV appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Georgia Court of Appeals Reverses Defense Verdict Based on Assumption of the Risk – Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch https://carlockcopeland.com/publications/georgia-court-appeals-reverses-defense-verdict-based-assumption-risk-health-law-regulation-update-blog-post-eric-frisch/ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 18:07:49 +0000 https://carlockcopeland.com/?post_type=publications&p=17078 Recent Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch In this convoluted case, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a motion for new trial filed by the plaintiffs after a defense verdict for the defendant cardiologist. Mr. Berryhill was prescribed medication to control his blood pressure at a local clinic.…

The post Georgia Court of Appeals Reverses Defense Verdict Based on Assumption of the Risk – Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Recent Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch

In this convoluted case, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a motion for new trial filed by the plaintiffs after a defense verdict for the defendant cardiologist. Mr. Berryhill was prescribed medication to control his blood pressure at a local clinic. He then went to see the defendant cardiologist, Dr. Daly, who provided him with additional medication. Dr. Daly also performed a cardiac catheterization and placed a stent. Following surgery, Dr. Daly told Mr. Berryhill not to engage in any “strenuous or risky activity, or any lifting, bending, or stooping over.” Mrs. Berryhill was present. Five days later, Mr. Berryhill went hunting with a friend. He was in a deer stand about 18 feet off the ground when he fainted and fell, suffering serious injuries.

The Berryhills sued the cardiologist, a pharmacy, and the manufacturer of the deer stand. Against the cardiologist, plaintiffs alleged Dr. Daly prescribed too much blood pressure medication, which caused him to faint. The pharmacy and manufacturer were dismissed before trial. Dr. Daly’s motions in limine included a motion to exclude the testimony of an expert pharmacist and to have the claims against the manufacturer admitted into evidence as admissions. The Court instructed the jury on assumption of the risk and avoidance of the consequences.

Dr. Daly won and plaintiffs moved for a new trial including as grounds that the charge on assumption of the risk was not appropriate. The trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals reversed.

The Court of Appeals held that a jury instruction for assumption of the risk is authorized only when the plaintiff assumes a known risk arising from a defendant’s conduct or failure to act. In so holding, the Court wrote “[t]he knowledge requirement does not refer to a plaintiff’s comprehension of general, non-specific risks that might associated . . . but rather is based in part on the reasoning that the plaintiff, in advance, has given his consent to relieve the defendant of an obligation of conduct towards him, and to take his chances of injury from a known risk arising from what the defendant is to do or leave undone.” The Court went on to write “[h]ere, climbing in to a deer stand was not a risk associated with Dr. Daly’s duty to Berryhill” and “it would be incorrect to identify this risk . . as justifying the instruction.” However, it was the risk of syncope (fainting) as a side effect that was the “particular risk in question.”  While the evidence showed Dr. Daly advised Mr. Berryhill not to engage in strenuous activity, the evidence did not establish that Mr. Berryhill knew he risked losing consciousness if he chose not to comply. Accordingly, the trial court should not have charged on assumption of the risk. The Court then concluded that the error may have been harmful because it could have led the jury into believing that any risk Mr. Berryhill assumed would support a finding of no liability.

The take-home is not that Dr. Daly had a duty to inform Mr. Berryhill of the specific risks of fainting or syncope. Rather, the Court only ruled that the jury charge should not have been given. The Court did not discuss whether a more narrowly tailored charge would have been appropriate.

The case is Berryhill v. Daly, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 526.

For more information on our Health Law and Regulation Update Blog or to subscribe, please click here.

The post Georgia Court of Appeals Reverses Defense Verdict Based on Assumption of the Risk – Health Law and Regulation Update Blog Post by Eric Frisch appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Laura Paton Presents The Usual Suspects at The CLM’s 2018 Construction Conference – September 27, 2018 https://carlockcopeland.com/publications/laura-paton-presents-usual-suspects-clms-2018-construction-conference-september-27-2018/ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:39:04 +0000 https://carlockcopeland.com/?post_type=publications&p=17067 Laura Paton co-presented The Usual Suspects: A Survey of The South’s Trickiest Plaintiff’s Attorneys, on Thursday, September 27th at 1:00 p.m. at The CLM’s Construction Conference in Chicago, IL.  Laura’s session discussed the top 2-3 construction defects plaintiff’s attorneys in each state in the South, their major verdicts, how they achieved those verdicts, and the tricks that they…

The post Laura Paton Presents The Usual Suspects at The CLM’s 2018 Construction Conference – September 27, 2018 appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Laura Paton co-presented The Usual Suspects: A Survey of The South’s Trickiest Plaintiff’s Attorneys, on Thursday, September 27th at 1:00 p.m. at The CLM’s Construction Conference in Chicago, IL.  Laura’s session discussed the top 2-3 construction defects plaintiff’s attorneys in each state in the South, their major verdicts, how they achieved those verdicts, and the tricks that they usually employ during litigation, mediation, and trial. As well as identified successful strategies  to combat those tricks so that claims professionals and attorneys are prepared the next time they come up against one of these “Usual Suspects”.

For more information on The CLM or their annual Construction Conference, please click here.

The post Laura Paton Presents The Usual Suspects at The CLM’s 2018 Construction Conference – September 27, 2018 appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
The CLM and Business Insurance’s 2018 Claims College Recap – Insurance Coverage Corner Blog Post by Angela Kopet https://carlockcopeland.com/publications/clm-business-institutes-2018-claims-college-recap-recent-insurance-coverage-corner-blog-posting-angela-kopet/ Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:19:21 +0000 https://carlockcopeland.com/?post_type=publications&p=17026 Recent Insurance Coverage Corner Blog Post by Angela Kopet. This was the seventh year The Council of Litigation Management’s Claims College occurred in Baltimore, Maryland.  The College has eleven specialty schools, and students have the ability to earn their CCP (Certified Claims Professional) designation, ACP (Advanced Claims Professional) designation, or a Certificate in Mediation, Extra-Contractual…

The post The CLM and Business Insurance’s 2018 Claims College Recap – Insurance Coverage Corner Blog Post by Angela Kopet appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>
Recent Insurance Coverage Corner Blog Post by Angela Kopet.

This was the seventh year The Council of Litigation Management’s Claims College occurred in Baltimore, Maryland.  The College has eleven specialty schools, and students have the ability to earn their CCP (Certified Claims Professional) designation, ACP (Advanced Claims Professional) designation, or a Certificate in Mediation, Extra-Contractual Claims or Leadership depending on the classes they take.  I was excited to return to the faculty for the School of Casualty and to join the Executive Council for the School of Leadership.  This was the seventh year The Council of Litigation Management’s Claims College occurred in Baltimore, Maryland.  The College has eleven specialty schools, and students have the ability to earn their CCP (Certified Claims Professional) designation, ACP (Advanced Claims Professional) designation, or a Certificate in Mediation, Extra-Contractual Claims or Leadership depending on the classes they take.  I was excited to return to the faculty for the School of Casualty and to join the Executive Council for the School of Leadership.

This was the School of Leadership’s second year at Claims College.  The eight classes presented assist students with understanding different types of leadership theories.  They also provide direction and guidance for leadership development.  It was an honor to work with the talented Deans of this school and the other Executive Council members to expand on the classes presented last year.

As a faculty member for the School of Casualty, I returned to teach a Level 2 course titled “Case Resolution:  Development of a Negotiation Strategy.”  Our goal for this class is to make it as interactive as possible to allow students to apply their own style to various negotiation scenarios.  Besides discussing the principles of negotiation, we also try to assist in the creation of a negotiation strategy and how to overcome an impasse or difficult adversary.  Every year, the students in this class amaze me with their presentations for each negotiation exercise we present to them.

Claims College is one of the most rewarding educational experiences I engage in each year. This college is where I get to teach with some of the industry’s top professionals, and meet with future leaders participating in the classes presented.  I am already looking forward to next year.

For more information on our Insurance Coverage Corner Blog or to subscribe, please click here.

The post The CLM and Business Insurance’s 2018 Claims College Recap – Insurance Coverage Corner Blog Post by Angela Kopet appeared first on Carlock Copeland.

]]>