Archive for the ‘Law in Washington, D.C.’ Category

Week in Review (May 2 – 6, 2011): The Eye Opener Health, Law and Just Interesting Stuff Blog

Saturday, May 7th, 2011

From Brian Nash (Editor)

We appreciate your stopping by to see what this past week’s posts covered in the world of law, medicine, health and safety – and then some.

You’ve been told you need to undergo treatment. The doctor tells you (hopefully) the risks and benefits of what’s being proposed. You’re wondering – “Is this my only choice?” In a non-emergency situation you usually have a choice you may not have considered – a second opinion. Theresa Neumann’s piece this past week addresses this usually available but very under-utilized resource for patient’s facing this situation.

Sarah Keogh writes about a topic that makes a lot of sense – when you stop and think about it. Who are the people on a hospital’s medical team that are with you more than anyone else? Your nurses, of course. Just how does a nurse’s working conditions not only affect him or her – how does it affect your health? Read Sarah’s piece and find out.

Asthma affects the lives of 20 million people in America. It does not discriminate since it affects the young, the old and all in between. This past week, Jon Stefanuca, who has been immersed in a case involving a young man who tragically died as a result of asthma shortly after being discharged from a local hospital, shared his “4 tips” to make sure you get the health care you need when you have an asthma problem. If you or someone close to you has asthma, take the time to consider Jon’s suggestions. As always, if there are some suggestions you could share with others, please do in the comments section.

Recently our firm started using QR Codes on our business cards. I’d heard about them but wasn’t quite sure what they were all about. After a little bit of study and discussion, I was amazed at what they can do – you will be too. So many now use their phones and mobile devices as their primary means for connecting with the world via the internet. Just download a free mobile application, snap a picture using the app and the QR Code will whisk (at a blazingly fast speed) you away to more information than you can imagine. Jason Penn, who was the first to get his QR Code business card, was apparently fascinated by this new technology, so he wrote a post this week about it and shares with you some interesting information about some others who have been using it for some time now.

Our Posts of the Past Week

Medical Second Opinions: An Under-utilized Option for Patients

By: Theresa Neumann

Today’s medical world is vast with various technologies, treatments and options.  So, if a patient is diagnosed with a medical condition, and doctor A recommends treatment A, what keeps the patient from seeking a second opinion? This is an interesting phenomenon.  After performing intake summaries and client interviews for quite a while now, it still amazes me how many people have bad outcomes from surgery simply because they never requested a second opinion. Second opinions are not simply reserved for surgery, though; cancer treatment options, medical therapies for chronic conditions like rheumatoid arthritis or inflammatory bowel disease….read more

 

Working Conditions for Nurses Impact Patient Health

By: Sarah Keogh

I suspect that anyone who has spent even as much as one day or night in a hospital knows just how critical the nursing staff is in the , health, care and comfort of a patient. A compassionate and personable nurse can put a patient at ease and help them feel better in ways that go beyond just medicine.

Recently, I wrote about how different schedules impact nurses’ lives and how they cope with shifting from day to night schedules. This week, I was drawn to write about nurses again after seeing an article on medicalnewstoday.com that spoke about a study done by the University of Maryland School of Nursing.  Read more

Having an Asthma Problem: 4 Tips for you to use to get the medical care you need

By: Jon Stefanuca

Did you know that approximately 20 million Americans suffer from asthma?  Every day, about 40,000 of them miss school or work because of this condition. Each day, approximately 30, 000 experience an asthma attack.  About 5000 patients end up in the emergency room. Asthma is also the most common chronic condition among children. Can there by any doubt it is a very serious and potentially deadly medical condition that needs equally serious understanding and attention? The good news is that with proper education and treatment, most asthmatics have active and productive lives.

Bronchospasm and inflammation: the key features of asthma

This chronic airway disease has two primary features: bronchospasm and inflammation. Bronchospasm refers to the mechanism by which airways become narrower. In asthmatic patients, the muscle within the wall of the airway contracts, thus narrowing the lumen (a cavity or channel within a tubular structure) of the airway and causing respiratory obstruction. Inflammation refers to the process by which the wall of the airway becomes thicker in response to inflammation, which also causes the lumen to narrow and produce respiratory obstruction. Bronchospasm is usually treated with….read more

Bar Codes, QR Codes and More: The Intersection of Life and Technology

By: Jason Penn

The business cards I ordered arrived yesterday.  I tore into the package to do the usual inspection.  Is my name spelled correctly?  Is the card stock heavy enough?  Did they use the desired typeface?  Yes. Yes. And Yes.  But I needed to ask one additional question: Does the QR code link correctly?   I know what you are thinking:  What is a QR Code and why is it on your business card?  Let’s try an experiment. Read more…

Don’t forget, however – you can learn about Jason but just using your QR Code reader right now….

Sneak Peak of the Week Ahead

That was it for last week. What’s coming in the week ahead? Here you go -

  • Mike Sanders has a piece about our wonderful canine friends and how they are being used for those with special needs.
  • Sarah Keogh will be investigate the role and responsibility of our schools to warn parents about potential health problems involving their children
  • Jon Stefanuca will be taking a look at ovarian cancer and suggesting some key issues to discuss with your physician
  • Jason Penn will be telling us more about stroke and a very interesting problem that his research has revealed
  • I will be writing about a brand new project we are starting to take our social networking to a whole new level – stay tuned.

Again – many thanks to all who stopped by. Take a few minutes, read our posts and maybe have some interesting topics for discussion this weekend after reading last week’s Eye Opener.

Have a great weekend, Everyone!



Week in Review (April 23 – 29, 2011): The Eye Opener Health and Law Blog

Saturday, April 30th, 2011

From the Editor:

Last week was a busy but productive week for our firm’s blawgers – 6 posts – and we actually practiced law a lot! My personal thanks to our writers for taking the time to post some important pieces on health, safety, medicine and law. To our readers, my continued and sincere thanks as well. While it’s great to pull-out our soapbox and write about stuff we do and are passionate about, it’s incredibly rewarding to have you, our readers, take the time to read what we write. To those who left comments, a special thanks. We really enjoy interacting with you!

Now on to the business at hand. What did we write about that you may find interesting? Here you go.

My Pet Peeves About the New Age Mediation Process

Having been inspired by a fellow blawger from New York, Scott Greenfield, who chided legal bloggers (thus the name “blawgers”) for simply rehashing news and not taking a stand on issues, I wrote a piece called Mediation of Lawsuits: The 5 Top Things that Tick Me Off!

Having recently been through a number of mediations that were enough to pull your hair out because of the silliness that people engage in when they claim they are mediating to get cases resolved, I decided that it was time to take a stand and post a personal rant. While perhaps best understood by lawyers, claims adjusters and mediators, this blawg was not intended just for them. I’ve seen what impact foolish approaches and conduct by the participants to mediation can have on my clients, the injured parties. It was time to sound-off; so that’s what I did. I once again invite anyone who has been a party to a lawsuit mediation to do your own personal sound-off and tell us what it was like for you. It’s your turn to tell us just how much you enjoyed the process and what can be done to make it better. Read the horror story told in our Comments section by one of our Canada readers when she went through a domestic mediation process. Share your thoughts and stories as well.

Health Care: Who’s “Voiceless” When It Comes to Being Heard on Capitol Hill

Guess I had too much time on my hands at the beginning of this week (not really!). I couldn’t help but be inspired by a piece Jason Penn had done last week about how families were so adversely affected by the budget cuts that were made when the government shutdown was looming a few weeks ago. As I was going through my Google Reader early this past week, I came across an Op Ed by a doctor, who was complaining or at least suggesting that the president and congress need to hear more what doctors had to say about health care reform. Having read that, Jason’s piece jumped into my mind and the result was my blawg entitled Health Reform: What voice does the patient have in the debate.

The post brings to light the amount of money being spent by the healthcare industry in its lobbying efforts on health care reform. ObamaCare‘s raison d’etre is explored as well since it is ironic, if not sad, how the story behind all this money, lobbying and legislation seems to have been lost in the rhetoric. More affordable, better and available health care for our citizens? Then why were the most needy among us the victims of back room wheeling and dealing when the time came for budget cuts to save the federal government from closing its doors? I ask the question – who’s voice is being heard – but more important – who’s is not?

FDA approves use of “meningitis drug,” Menactra, for younger children

Hopefully you’ll never need to use this information, but if you do, Jason Penn reported on a condition – meningitis – that can affect not only adults and older children, but infants and toddlers as well. Meningitis is generally defined as an inflammation of the protective membranes covering the brain and spinal cord. Prior to a recent change in position by the FDA, there wasn’t a vaccine available for children under the age of 2. Now, with the FDA’s recent approval, Menactra can be used to vaccinate children from the age of 9 months to age 2.

In addition to this news release, Jason tells parents about the signs and symptoms they should be aware of to spot this condition.

The classic symptoms of meningitis are a high fever, headache and stiff neck. Detection of these symptoms, particularly headache and stiff neck are certainly difficult to detect in infants and toddlers. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, infants with meningitis may appear slow or inactive, have vomiting, be irritable, or be feeding poorly. Seizures are also a possibility.

To learn more about this important topic, read his piece Meningitis & Your Baby: Three Things to Think About.

Why are children still dying because of venetian blinds?

Sarah Keogh wrote what I believe is a very important piece for parents, grandparents or anyone who has a baby in the house. Years ago we all heard about the horror of parents finding their babies dead from strangulation when their necks became entangled in venetian blinds. Years have passed since those stories made the front page. Well, an update on just how well manufacturers and parents have been doing to avoid such tragedies was recently posted in The New York Times.

In her blawg entitled Window Blinds: Why are Children Still Dying, Sarah tells us the sad truth that these deaths and injuries still continue in our country. Find out what you as a caregiver of a young child need to realize about this product. Maybe you’ve put the cords up high and out-of-reach for your baby. Maybe you’ve taken other steps to avoid such a nightmarish event ever happening in your home and in your life. Unfortunately, many who have done so have still suffered this tragedy. Why? What is being done by manufacturers and the government to prevent these injuries and deaths ? Read Sarah’s piece for the answers and some practical advice you can take to make your home safer for your child.

Hospitals Reporting Methods for “Adverse Events”

We all know by now that if you want to look good to the public, all you have to do is “play with the numbers.” Well, it seems like hospitals have a penchant for doing just that. One of the key “numbers” that advocates of patient health and safety look at is how many “adverse events” take place in any given hospital. An “adverse event,” as you may already know, is – simply put – any harm to a patient as a result of medical care.

In his post this past week, Jason Penn compares some interesting adverse event bookkeeping by hospitals throughout our country. His blawg, The New Enron? Are Hospitals Cooking the Books?, brings to light serious flaws in the way that our medical institutions “count” the number of so-called adverse events taking place within their walls. His research for this piece reveals…

[M]edical errors occur 10 times more than previously thought.Maybe that wasn’t hard hitting enough. Let me try again. How about this: mistakes occur in one out of every three hospital admissions!

Frankly, that strikes me as an astounding and very concerning number. Are the numbers being reported reflecting this? The simple answer is no. Why not? Read Jason’s post and see what reporting systems are in place – or not in place as the case may be. We all remember Enron. Is this the medical version of “making the numbers look good” when they simply are not!

Surgeons and Booze – an Obvious Bad Combination – Who’s Protecting Us?

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that surgeons should not be under the influence when we as patients are “under the knife” What’s not so obvious is just how prevalent this may be in the operating rooms of our country (and throughout the world).

Wondering what the studies have been done by the medical profession to examine this problem? Have any idea what regulations are in place by hospitals to guard against the problem of “hungover surgeons”?

Wonder no more. Jon Stefanuca’s blog this past week, Hungover Surgeons: Watch Out! There’s Nothing Between You and Their Scalpel!,will tell you all you need to know. Jon queries: “Should hospitals regulate for patient safety?” What do you think? Share your comments.

A “Sneak Peak” of the week ahead

Some more good advice is on the way for parents of special needs children. We all know about what a wonderful aide dogs are for the blind. Mike Sanders will share what he’s learned how these canine wonders are being used for kids in need. Suffering from asthma or know someone who is? Jon Stefanuca will be sharing with  you some valuable information on this topic next week. A number of our clients or their now-deceased family members have suffered from this condition. Jon will share a story or two (without revealing protected confidential information) to bring to light just how this medical condition needs to be better recognized and treated by our health care providers before its too late. We all know what a difficult job nursing can be. That being said, Sarah Keogh will be telling us about some very concerning “trends” that are coming to light in this wonderful profession. Stay tuned for this important piece.

We’ll start next week off with a new blawg by our in-house medical specialist, Theresa Neumann. Her post on how important it can be to get a second opinion before you sign-up for a surgery, procedure or test is sitting in the queue just waiting to hit the pages of The Eye Opener – Views and Opinions from the Nash Community.

One Final Note: I wrote in last weekend’s Week In Review that we intended to post a new White Paper by Marian Hogan on a very important topic relating to Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA). It didn’t happen – because of “my Bad.” I fouled-up and sent the wrong draft of Marian’ s piece to our graphic designer. He did a wonderful job – as usual – of getting it ready – it just wasn’t the right version. The problem is fixed, but my mistake will delay the posting of this important White Paper for another week. Public apology: Sorry, Marian! We’ll make it right soon.


Mediation of Lawsuits: The Top 5 Things that Tick Me Off!

Monday, April 25th, 2011

Having practiced law now for almost four decades, I’ve been involved in the resolution/settlement of thousands of cases. When I was a much younger lawyer, we didn’t have formal mediation sessions. We would  just talk with the other lawyer, pick-up a phone or sit down with the claims adjuster and just worked it out. Now the in-thing is formal mediation.

For those who may not be familiar with the mediation process, in the context of our firm’s areas of practice, it is basically a formal meeting involving all parties to a legal dispute, who hire an independent person called a mediator, to try to resolve the dispute between the parties through settlement. The intent is to avoid the risk, uncertainty and expense associated with taking the dispute to trial.

There’s no doubt in my mind that a good mediation session settles some cases that might otherwise be difficult to work out. That being said, I seem to be running into some trends over the last couple of years that are – quite frankly – starting to really p**s me off!

Normally, I would keep my lawyer-rants to discussions with those in my law firm or with some lawyer pals, who share the same frustrations. Recently, however, I read a post by a legal blogger – a blawger (a lawyer who blogs), Scott H. Greenfield, who took to task legal bloggers for not taking a stand on issues. His blawg is titled Dead Lawyers Have No Enemies. I decided I would do the Lazarus thing and take a stand on an issue that’s been bugging me for some time – modern day mediation and mediators.

In no particular order, here is my list of the top 5 things about mediation that just tick me off:

1. No meaningful discussions before the mediation session

How many times now have I heard the mantra -”No, we don’t want to engage in any settlement discussions (interpretation – no first offer) until we get to mediation.” Far too many times I’m afraid. Why is this? Can’t people get the process started before mediation so that we all can make an intelligent decision as to whether formal mediation has a chance of working or whether the upcoming mediation has all the ear-markings of a waste of time and money?

Here’s the mediation scenario: The clients have to miss work or otherwise be inconvenienced to be at mediation. Many times we have to travel some distance to attend. We sit through the mandatory (but necessary for the clients) introduction by the mediator advising those new to this process who the mediator is, what his/her background is, what the process is all about, how it’s confidential and nothing said can ever be used outside the mediation session. The confidentiality form is signed and the parties go to their separate rooms.

On behalf of my clients (the party bringing the lawsuit), we make a demand. After some time passes (which varies greatly depending on the mediator), the first offer is made. Lately, more often than not, the offer is some ridiculously low-ball amount. The mediator tells you and your clients: “Don’t take it personally. They’re just trying to send a message” You fight every instinct welling-up inside you to send your own message by just walking out. After getting control of your own emotions, you try to calm your clients down. Not easy to do sometimes – for instance when (by way of a real life example) my clients just been told their dead child is worth $25,000. Of course that’s not what’s being said by the defendant’s insurer, but that’s exactly how it resonates – in this example – with the plaintiffs, who do take it personally.

There’s no doubt that when as a plaintiff’s lawyer you make a demand that’s simply ridiculous, you somewhat deserve to get low-balled in Round 1. However, when you purposely try to put a reasonable number on the table – albeit giving yourself room to negotiate, it is enraging and detrimental to the process on many levels when you get low-balled by the defense. Apparently, the defense doesn’t believe you actually tried to make a reasonable initial demand. They take a reasonable demand as a sign of weakness in the plaintiff’s case. Yet, if I were to take the other approach and start with an equally outrageous demand in Round 1, I would never hear the end of it from the other side. Sure – “reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder, but skilled advocates generally have a sense of the range it takes to be in at the end of the day to settle any given case.

My free advice: If mediators were doing their job, they would get the negotiations underway before the first formal mediation session. My suggestion: let’s get all the foreplay out of the way before the formal mediation session. If it’s going to be a waste of everyone’s time, then let’s put our efforts and money to better use and not mediate in the first place.

2. The Defense not understanding the impact of their conduct

Having been a defense lawyer before switching sides (referred to by insurance adjusters as “going to the dark side“), for years, I didn’t sit in the room with the injured party when we sent the first offer (and the second and the third and….) into the plaintiff’s room. Had I been a fly on that room’s wall, maybe I would have realized a lot earlier just what impact our “message” was going to have on that injured party, whose case we claimed we were trying to settle.

As the years went by and I saw some plaintiff lawyers packing-up their bags and heading-out with their clients as a response to our message offer, I started to get it. Call me a “slow learner,” but at least I had my epiphany.

Now that I am sitting with the injured person who brought the lawsuit, let me share a bit of advice with my colleagues on the other side. Don’t p**s off the plaintiff and in turn his/her lawyer by sending the wrong message. Does any defense lawyer or risk management person really believe the plaintiff wants to hear: “Your dead child (or replace with – your injured child, your missing leg, your paralyzed son – and every other injury that has befallen a plaintiff) is worth $25,000 or $50,000.”

Now that I’ve been sitting with these injured or grieving people for years, I get to see firsthand  just what kind of impact a low ball, “message offer” has on people. It starts the process out on the wrong foot. You – as the lawyer representing the injured person – have to try to remain calm in order to calm your client down. You try to convince them that this is just a game being played and they shouldn’t read anything into it. Well, Dear Defense Lawyer and Claims Person, it is not a game to the person who’s been injured!

Apparently many defense lawyers are relying on their bible, Mediation 101, which ostensibly tells them that when they are in the initial general session, the defense should tell the plaintiffs just how sorry they, the defense, are for the injuries and losses the plaintiffs have suffered.

Well here’s some free advice from the dark side: With the first chance you have to show that this empathy was really sincere, don’t slap the plaintiffs in the face with a low ball, message offer. It’s not a good technique!

If you, the defense, take this approach, you have completely lost all credibility, the war is on and now it will take hours of worthless and unnecessary haggling to get to where this all could have started if the parties had started out in good faith efforts to negotiate. Hopefully, Advanced Mediation Technique – 201 will be coming out soon!

3. Mediators who are nothing but high-priced messenger services

Finding a qualified mediator seems to be getting harder and harder. The good ones seem to be booked-up for months to come. Maybe that’s because they are good. Why does it seem to me that every retired judge now thinks that he or she is a qualified mediator? Sorry, Former Member of the Judiciary, but you are not all qualified. Some are; some are not.

How many times have the litigants experienced a mediator who simply walks from room to room and delivers the latest offer or the latest demand? My answer: way too many times! If I need a courier, I’ll hire a courier. They are a heck of a lot less expensive and could be equally effective.

Since so many of us “in the trenches” are searching for skilled, qualified and effective mediators, who don’t cost an arm and a leg (and dramatically increase the costs of the case), a lot of newbie mediators are among the selection pool. Well, I for one am not interested in a mediator getting his or her training-wheels on my client’s case. Can’t there be some universally accessible databank or message board or listserv in today’s digital age where litigators can freely express their views, comments and criticisms of mediators so that litigants can have a real choice of qualified, reasonably priced and effective mediators? Maybe I’ll make that my next project – in my spare time.

4. Using mediation as a “feeling out” session

I cannot tell you how many times I have gone to a mediation session where the goal seems to be that one side – usually the defense – wants to get a feel for just how much it’s going to take to get the case settled or to get a feel for the plaintiff and how they will come across to a jury if the case doesn’t settle.

Sorry, but mediation is not discovery! If the defendant’s insurer or claims person wants to gain these insights, then they should take the time, in serious cases, to attend the plaintiff’s deposition. If they can’t be there, maybe they will be interested to learn that there’s new technology called a video deposition. It’s only been around for years!

In this same vein, it fascinates me when I hear a messenger mediator tell me some of the justifications for why a low-ball offer being made is well-founded. The mediator (particularly those in the messenger class) takes as gospel so-called facts about the case from the defense and conclude they are being reasonable – or even magnanimous – when these facts are nowhere to be found in the evidence of the case being mediated!

Recently, I had a defendant and its settlement team of lawyers and adjusters, totally enamored with their causation defense (admitting in essence the caregivers had totally failed to follow acceptable standards of good medical care but claiming – “our conduct, which we recognize was awful, didn’t cause your client’s injuries”) that drove the entire negotiations toward abject failure. After hours of meaningless back-and-forth, small, incremental offers and demands, the whole mediation session fell apart.  If the mediator had truly known the real facts of the case, he would have realized that this so-called defense was in large part predicated on a defense expert’s unfounded opinion. Truth be known, that “expert” had totally failed to read our client’s subsequent care records, which disprove his baseless opinions.

Should I have told the defense where they were wrong? Or – should I save this information for cross-examination if I honestly believe the case is not going to settle and I will have to try it? Tough call – but I opted for the latter course since the negotiations were going nowhere fast anyway. I made a judgment call that the reserve put on the case by the healthcare was so low that this case would not settle no matter what they learned that day.

Mediation sessions are intended to resolve cases, not act as a session for the claim’s representative to figure out what the case is about! Just how many serious cases do these claims people have that they can’t come prepared for mediation? How in the world do they set a reserve on a case not understanding the medicine (in a medical malpractice case) of the case?

A free, albeit unsolicited message for our claims brethren: If you don’t or can’t understand the medicine before you put a value on it, learn the medicine from your defense lawyer. Isn’t that what you are in part paying for when you pay their hourly fees? Really know your file and question your defense counsel about their recommendations. Simply put – come to mediation understanding the facts and the law as best you can. Don’t see mediation as just another opportunity to spend a day out of the office.

5. Mediators who don’t, can’t or won’t challenge the positions of each side

Maybe this is a corollary to my “don’t be just a messenger,” but it holds a special place in my heart– so it makes the list. I can’t tell you how many mediators announce during the initial, joint session (where all parties and counsel are present) that they are not advocates for one side or the other. Well that’s fine; however, there comes a time when the position of one party or the other needs to be challenged by the mediator.

Messenger Mediators just listen and are often blindly impressed by the arguments of the lawyers for each side. Here’s the problem – a good mediator needs to be able to understand the validity – or lack thereof – of those arguments to be effective. If a mediator doesn’t understand the law or the facts of a case well enough to challenge either side’s position, then what purpose do they serve?

Admittedly, a mediator cannot possibly know the “facts” of a case as well as the litigants. That does not mean, however, that they should simply show-up and facilitate a settlement by trying to act as a middleman in reaching the “sweet spot” of dollars that both sides are willing to accept to reach a settlement. While this approach may work in some smaller cases, it simply does not work in more complex and higher value cases.

Some of the best mediators I have had the pleasure to work with listen to the arguments, analyze the relative strengths and weaknesses of those positions and then challenge the parties and lawyers by questioning the validity of their arguments and position. When that’s done, it is amazing how progress is made toward a resolution of the case. Simply put, good mediators cut through the posturing and puffery and expose the weaknesses of each side’s case. The only way that can happen is if the mediator has taken the time to really learn the case. In my field of medical malpractice, that may mean taking the time to read the key medical records, key depositions or whatever other “evidence” each side believes supports their respective position and using that knowledge to cut to the heart of the issues.

Sure – it may mean paying a mediator a bit more for their time, but if it gets a settlement done, isn’t it worth it? I for one would rather spend money for a mediator who can perform this type of service than one who spends hours in the mediation session just listening to a party’s specious arguments, getting a new offer or demand and then doing the shuttle diplomacy gig. Way too often, this time-consuming shuttling from one room to the other doesn’t work. The mediator’s time “in the room” would be much better spent by questioning, probing and dissecting the relative positions of each side. That – in my experience – works more often than not and gets the case settled. Every case has weaknesses for all parties involved. So – Mediators – find the weaknesses, expose them and use them to bring reality to the mediation process in order to get it done. You don’t have to be an advocate, but you do need to be pro-active.

What are your pet peeves?

This blawg rant is not intended just for lawyers or mediators. I’d love to hear from people – like clients/parties to a lawsuit, who have participated in today’s modern marvel – formal mediation sessions.

Lawyers and litigants – plaintiff and defense – what is it about mediation that you think needs to be fixed? Maybe if we all put our heads together, we can make this a more meaningful process for everyone.

Related Posts:

One More Mediation Pet Peeve, John Bratt, Miller & Zois

 

 

 


 

 

Gratitude: We just topped 8,000 monthly readers – Thanks so much!

Saturday, April 16th, 2011

When we started our blog about 15 months ago, we were hoping that someone – other than our relatives and friends – would come and read our posts. I’m sitting at my computer working on a blog for this coming week and decided I would check our Google Analytics to see how we were doing in trying to get our message out there. Well here’s today’s stats -

Nash & Associates stats via Google Analytics - April 15, 2011

The only words that came to mind when I saw that we had just topped 8,000 visits and almost 11, 500 pages viewed by those visitors over the last 30 days were – and are – THANK YOU!

Yes, I fully realize that these are statistics that apply to our website, but a very large number of these visits are due to folks coming to read our blogs and then checking us out or looking at some other other “stuff” on our website. No – we’re not yet ranked among the big boys or women bloggers, but the numbers tell us that we’re not doing too bad a job either. We’ll just liken ourselves to Avis and keep trying harder.

Almost a year ago, I figured out that if we were ever going to increase our website “hits,” we needed to make our blog, which was sitting on WordPress.com, a subdomain of our website. So, with the help of our “website guy,” we moved the blog over to WordPress.org and voila – the visits started growing immediately.

We – as a law firm – wondered how we could not only market our firm but also how we might be able to actually contribute to our community. As I have said in the past, who really wants to connect with lawyers or a law firm on social media channels? As my wife so aptly likened such a venture – “Who wants to connect with a mortician – unless you need one?” Smart person, my wife.

We ventured into the world of social media via Facebook and Twitter. We initially did the standard lawyer stuff of trying to tell our vast following of about 25 people (yes – our relatives and a few invited but brow-beaten friends) just how wonderful we were as a law firm. Then – after reading a ton of posts by social media gurus and blogging experts – we started to figure out the answer. Notice – I did say “started” – we have a long way to go admittedly.

Blogging by lawyers and socializing via channels such as Facebook and Twitter as a group of lawyers has to be about our readers, friends, fans and followers. We’re still working on it – but at least it seems a good number of people – like YOU (since you must be reading this) are looking for information that can help YOU.

We now have over 500 Fans on our Facebook business page, just under 2,500 followers on our firm’s Twitter page and now – as I learned today – over 8,000 monthly visitors to our website – primarily reading our blog! We just want to say THANK YOU to all of you. You have made the hard times of doing blogging and engaging in social media in the midst of a very busy law practice a rewarding, enriching and wonderful experience. Your loyalty and – yes – friendship – have been a fabulous motivating force to keep all of us going.

We are constantly searching to find new and exciting information in the world of law and medicine. As I wrote in our Twitter profile – I – and my team at Nash & Associates are just -

Lawyer[s] trying to get the word out so you never need [people] like us. Newbie[s] but lover[s] of Blogging on tips n’ tricks (and other stuff) to wisely use healthcare.

That’s why we blog, tweet and post on Facebook. Sure – if you need us (and hopefully you don’t) – we’re here for our local friends, fans and readers in the Baltimore-Washington area. But even more important – we will try to reward your loyalty and friendship with our best efforts to provide you with news, insights, tips and tricks and whatever other good stuff we can muster over the coming weeks, months and years to come.

If at any time you want to drop us a message on what YOU would like for us to write about, we would most certainly appreciate any suggestions you may have. Just drop us a line via Facebook, a direct message on Twitter or through our website’s contact form. Your thoughts and suggestions on how we can accomplish our mission and better connect with you will always be most welcomed and appreciated.

So – again – THANKS to all of you who make and take the time to read what we have to write. Don’t forget to hit the comment button and share YOUR thoughts with us and our other readers as well.

Brian Nash – Editor-in-Chief of Eye Opener – Views and Opinions from the Nash Community

Supreme Court closes its front doors to the public

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

Earlier this week, news broke from various media sources around the country, including The Washington Post, that the front doors of the United States Supreme Court would no longer be open to the public.  The Court, citing security concerns, stated that effective immediately, visitors will enter the historic building on the plaza level, which includes security checkpoints.

This decision,  like so many other decisions from the Court, includes dissenting opinions from more than one Justice.  A Washington Post article states:

The changes have been debated for years and came with a dissent from two justices who expressed  concern about altering the symbolic experience of visiting the 75-year-old building, designed by architect Cass Gilbert.

“The significance of the court’s front entrance extends beyond its design and function,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in a statement joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “Writers and artists regularly use the steps to represent the ideal that anyone in this country may obtain meaningful justice through application to this Court. And the steps appear in countless photographs commemorating famous arguments or other moments of historical importance.

“In short, time has proven the success of Gilbert’s vision: To many members of the public, this court’s main entrance and front steps are not only a means to, but also a metaphor for, access to the court itself.”

Justice Breyer noted that he “knows of no other supreme court in the world that has closed its main entrance.”

I leave you with this to ponder….

Is it troubling to you that we are now barred from walking through the majestic doors of the highest court of this great country, where the above inscription reads “Equal Justice Under Law”?

Another Child Dies. Will DC EMS Improve Now?

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

We reported back in mid-March on our blog site on the issues surrounding an investigation of the District of Columbia’s Emergency Medical Services. Since then, DC EMS has represented that they have made positive changes to their department.  In a headline article posted on MSNBC.com at the end of this past week, D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Chief, Dennis L. Rubin, represented positive changes are being made:

Rubin said he is working to drive home a key point: providers never decline transport.

His staff is developing a “patient’s bill of rights” to be posted in every ambulance and producing a new  training video underscoring that message. In addition, the policy has been expanded to cover instances in which a patient refuses to be transported, including the requirement that responders get an OK from a supervisor and have a witness, such as a police officer, confirm the patient’s decision.

We certainly hope this is the case.  Our prior post cited a troubling report from April 2009, wherein it was found that there were serious training and performance issues relating to DC EMS.  The article posted at the end of  this past week also details another tragic event that unfolded after the report in April 2009:

Stephanie Stephens died after paramedics refused to take her to the hospital Feb. 10 in the first of two visits to her home after she experienced breathing problems. Her death has prompted a rare criminal investigation and raised questions about ambulance policies in Washington and emergency care for children nationwide.

After the paramedics recommended she be taken into a bathroom to inhale steam from a running shower, Stephanie’s family called back hours later and an EMS crew took her to a hospital. The child died from pneumonia the next day.

Anyone have issue with this?  How many tragedies must we endure before there is ZERO TOLERANCE for such costly delays?!  The citizens and guests of DC are dependent upon DC EMS to provide assistance immediately; not to give bad medical advice, try to play doctor, or decide that they will just simply not transport someone.  Read the report from last year cited above, along with the relevant articles.  Then, you decide.  I wonder what Stephanie’s family thinks…

Serious flaws in D.C.'s paramedic system

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

So says an editorial in last week’s The Washington Post.  The editorial details multiple deaths, allegedly caused by the inadequacies of  DC emergency response units.  One of the cases is the tragic story of Stephanie Stevens:

Responding to a call of a child with trouble breathing, emergency personnel went to Stephanie’s home on Feb. 10. But instead of taking her to a hospital, they advised her mother to run a hot shower to clear the child’s congested lungs. Less than 24 hours later, after another 911 call, she was dead, reportedly from complications of pneumonia.

This horrible set of circumstances follows other deaths in recent years – one with striking similarities:

Yet another problematic case was that of Edward L. Givens, who died in December 2008 after complaining of chest pains and being advised by emergency medical personnel to take Pepto-Bismol for what was likely acid reflux.

According to The Washington Post, a task force has been formed and has made some limited progress.  However, some of the main goals involve equal pay for medical personnel and to unify operations.  To date, this has not been accomplished.  An in-depth exclusive was featured by The Washington Post last year, regarding DC EMS problems.  A very concerning assessment of the quality of the training and performance of D.C.’s emergency response units was the subject of a Washington Times report of April 2009, which contains a ‘must see’ interview of Paul Werfel, Stony Brook University’s EMT/paramedic program director conducted by NBC 4, Washington, D.C.

Seat belt law not ‘clicking’ with House

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

A House subcommittee has killed a bill in Virginia, that would have made the failure to wear a seatbelt a primary offense.  Although there is another version of the bill that has cleared the Virginia Senate, it has been referred back to the same subcommittee that killed the first bill.  Some believe this bill will suffer the same fate:

Last week, the subcommittee voted to table House Bill 901, sponsored by Delegate William K. Barlow, D-Smithfield.

“This is the second year I’ve tried it. It never passes in the subcommittee,” Barlow said. “The bill gets killed at the lowest level.”

Now the subcommittee has been assigned Senate Bill 9, proposed by Sen. Harry B. Blevins, R-Chesapeake. It passed 24-16 in the Senate last month.

Blevins said he is not optimistic about the reception SB 9 will receive in the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee.

“The bill doesn’t have much of a chance,” Blevins said. “I’m a realist.”

Opponents of the bill cite government intrusion as a justification for rejecting such a law.

An article, as published through the online site of The Gainesville Times, briefly outlined the current law:

Currently, Virginia law states that “occupants of front seats who are 16 years or older are required to use safety lap belts and shoulder harnesses.” However, breaking that law is a secondary offense: Police may cite you for a seat-belt violation only if they see you committing another offense, such as speeding or running a red light.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, ask yourself:  ”What is the risk of having my seatbelt on, vs. not wearing one at all?”  Are there children in the car with you?  What kind of a message does it send to them if we do not buckle up?  Would you tell your child that they do not have to wear their seatbelt, or be ‘ok with it’ if they didn’t?  Remember, as much as we can control our vehicle, we can never control anyone else’s.  Be safe out there, please!

Choosing a Lawyer – A How-To Guide

Thursday, December 24th, 2009

One of the most important things you can do if you are considering a lawsuit is to spend time doing a proper search for the lawyer, who will be handling your case.

Just because a law firm or a lawyer has a fancy webpage or an eye-catching ad in your local phone directory or even a professional looking TV commercial does not mean that this lawyer has a clue what he/she is doing in the specialized areas of medical malpractice or catastrophic personal injury.

We invite you to read and consider the issues and questions raised in our White Paper – “How to Choose a Lawyer.”

If you have other ideas or questions that you believe would be helpful to our readers in their search for a lawyer, post your reply on this topic so others may benefit by your insights.

Nash And Associates Announces a Free New White Paper – "Statute of Limitations"

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

In the broadest sense, the statute of limitations is a period of time within which you are allowed to file a lawsuit against someone else. Another way to think about it is a deadline by which you must file your lawsuit. Why is there any time limitation at all on filing a lawsuit? The courts and legislature have reasoned that it is beneficial to society to have disputes resolved in a timely fashion. Also, as more and more time elapses after an incident, memories fade, important records get lost or destroyed, and it becomes more difficult to prove what actually happened. Therefore, the law imposes a time limit on when an injured party may file a lawsuit.

When you contact Nash and Associates to discuss your case, one of the first questions we will ask you is when did the incident take place and where it took place. The reason is simple—we need to know when the statute of limitations, or deadline, will expire in your specific case. The statute of limitations can vary widely depending on what state you live in and what specific legal claim you are asserting. Many states have a unique statute of limitations for medical negligence cases, including birth injuries, surgical errors, or other doctor mistakes. In some states (Ohio, for example) the statute of limitations can be as little as one year from the date of negligence. In Virginia, it is usually two years. In Maryland, it is generally three years, but even this seemingly simple rule can have a number of variables that can affect the deadline in your case