Comments on: Calling a Mississippi Supreme Court opinion everything but a Child of God

By: charlie

charlie — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:49:53 +0000

The insurance agent cashed the $20,000 check the day that he received it . He also issued a fax saying here is your policy number , ill be bringing the policy to you in the next couple of weeks. Underwriter testified that , THE POLICY WAS ISSUED BUT WITHDRAWN BECAUSE OF HIS DEATH. The family new that the punitive damages was excessive, but never thought that they would now be having to pay almost $500,000 to Prudential . Why did we have a jury trial with a unanimous decision ? I have first hand knowledge of this case and im not a lawyer , It was almost like the court never read the trial record , based on the opnion written by easley . You want a copy of the records ill be more than happy to send you a copy.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:29:37 +0000

Interesting, Hot Rod, and sounds plausible to me. More & more old people going into nursing homes = more & more litigation. (This would seem to be a ripe field for experimenting with a no-fault system, btw, horror tho it would be to my billable hours.)

Tho I would query this:

Nursing home is something you can keep in state court and is a pretty simple case due to the long history of case law.

I’m constantly struck by how many unresolved issues there are in nursing-home malpractice law in Miss. — lots of law on M.D.’s, less on nursing homes. I still find myself fielding issues that should’ve been knocked down years ago. Do nursing homes become fiduciaries of their residents? Is care provided by non-nursing staff subject to “ordinary negligence” suits rather than med-mal? Etc.

By: Hot Rod

Hot Rod — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:23:05 +0000

Yeah, i would say that you have a lot of unskilled litigators that still have some money to run a law firm, but do not have the knowledge to be creative. So, they look for the “home run” and that would be car wrecks, nursing homes and premise liability cases. the car wrecks are a limited commodity, but are still being filed mostly by the richie schwartz or don evans. While the bigger players might be getting the cases, the number will not go up. The same with the premises cases. (premises are being advertised for, so that number might go up.) Nursing home is something you can keep in state court and is a pretty simple case due to the long history of case law. Once you get the briefs and expert, you don’t need that much. Also, you are addressing a subject that most people do not want to acknowledge. We get old and everyone does not take care of their families. The interesting fact will be if certain plaintiff attorneys force nursing homes out of certain communities. Or how the arbitration agreements will work on those issues. I am sure the Supreme Court will start moving toward the center due to the recession in the legal field and to prevent the Smith/Kitchens factor from happening to them.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:31:42 +0000

I am not doubting you, but i don’t know of one aspect of law that has increased in filing lawsuits since tort reform has passed.

I admit that anecdote is not the singular of data. And you would win that bet. Any thoughts on why that’s the growth sector?

By: Hot Rod

Hot Rod — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:20:12 +0000

Anderson,
I am not doubting you, but i don’t know of one aspect of law that has increased in filing lawsuits since tort reform has passed. Most of the big plaintiff lawyers have scaled back or quit. Then you factor into the absence of out of state cases, i don’t see how a number of suits could have increased. But would you tell me what field out of curiosity. betting it is nursing homes.

Jane,
this has nothing to do with tort reform. This is about one attorney and his firm being careful what they wished for. Whether tort reform was needed or not is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that if you allow a judiciary with a conservative agenda that is too scared of the governor to cross him (Trent Lott’s special election case) to govern, then don’t complain about their decisions on your cases. All that you described could have been taken care of by moderate judges on the supreme court. I think David Chandler and Bubba Pierce are steps in the right direction.

By: Jane

Jane — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:03:33 +0000

I don’t think you can place all the blame for tort reform on defense attorneys. Let’s face it, there were a lot of sleazy plaintiff’s attorneys taking advantage of the “magic jurisdictions” with bullshit lawsuits. The silicosis lawsuits are but one example. Plenty of the asbestos suits were bullshit too. I remember in particular the $150 million awarded to 6 plaintiffs in Holmes County. None of the plaintiffs in that case could attribute missing a single day of work to their alleged asbestosis. Although the case was reversed on appeal, at least one of the defendants, an employee-owned spinoff of Armstrong, declared bankruptcy because it couldn’t afford the appeal bond. I just think maybe the plaintiff’s bar should have done a better job of policing its own.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:24:45 +0000

I have never understood how these idiotic defense lawyers would bill their files yet never consider how tort reform and judges with political agenda’s, specifically our governor’s, would not hurt them.

Some defense lawyers, at least, were cautious enough to warn their peers that “tort reform” would dry up some business.

Haven’t seen it in my line of work, I must admit. I believe the answer to damage caps has been “file more suits.”

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:24:45 +0000

I’ll add this to the rest of the mayhem. After pleading with the court’s for relief, again of our settled claims, the court dismissed. When we took attorneys to court for what they did we were warned. Should we continue we would be cited and have to pay attorneys fees. Hey babe there were hundreds of millions settled on our claims used to purchase the Ms. courts. In our opinion you have all already pay yourself s more than your worth. In fact when you stole form us you we at the height of your pride no.

It is those elaborate past actions of Mr.Alston which empowers his like of respect of others. If he’s close to ending his career may be he can find an abusive nursing home where the like of respect can reach his understanding.

By: Hot Rod

Hot Rod — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:30:43 +0000

What everyone is missing is that Mr. Alston’s firm or former one is a big reason the Court is like it is. I have never understood how these idiotic defense lawyers would bill their files yet never consider how tort reform and judges with political agenda’s, specifically our governor’s, would not hurt them. I do believe the phrase i am looking for is “paybacks are a bitch” or you could say “How about ex-Chief Justice Jim Smith doing car wrecks at Ashley Ogden’s? (Seriously, how the hell can a plaintiff lawyer give that sell out a job?)

By: NMC

NMC — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:41:28 +0000

Southman, I’m going to express a slightly different thought.

I’ve read the opinions at least twice. I think a real weakness in dissents on that court in the past is expressing disagreement without making it clear enough what was wrong. Alston’s brief has the same quality– tells the court off but isn’t clear why. I want something more about the record. That said I haven’t seen any of the briefs on the appeal proper.

The dissents from Kiitchens and Dickinson in the Osborne case are more what I’d like to see.

Another probllem- the ability of a judge to be misleading about facts. Alston says that occurred without convincing me how.

Posted by iPhone