Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Workers' Compensation Awarded to Deceased Employee's Family in Unsolved Murder Case
The Indiana Court of Appeals has held that workers' compensation can be awarded under the state's workers' compensation positional risk doctrine where an employee is murdered during the course of employment and that murder remains unsolved. Manous LLC v. Manousogianakis, 824 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. App. Mar. 31).
Christos Manousogianakis was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head at his place of employment, the Mayberry Cafe in Elkhart, IN. Upon finding his dead body, his wife, another cafe employee, also discovered that a cabinet in his office had been broken into and that $1000 in coins were missing. A single member of the Workers' Compensation Board held that because Manousogianakis was murdered in the course of employment and that his death resulted from a “neutral,” rather than a personal, risk, his family was entitled to workers' compensation benefits under the state's positional risk doctrine. After the full board affirmed this decision, the employer appealed, asserting that this doctrine was only applicable to cases involving unexplained slips and falls and that there was insufficient evidence to establish the deceased's family's entitlement to benefits.
In affirming the Workers' Compensation Board's decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the state's positional risk doctrine applies when an employee can show that his/her injury occurred in the course of employment and was the result of a neutral risk, which is inexplicable in nature rather than attributable to personal or employment conditions. The court found that “an unexplained murder is no less a neutral risk than is a more commonplace unexplained accident.” Furthermore, the court determined that sufficient evidence had been set forth asserting that Manousogianakis was engaged in work-related activities when he was killed, in that his job responsibilities required him to be on the premises in the evening in order to prepare for the morning's customers. Since his death therefore occurred in the course of employment, there was a presumption that the death arose out of his employment. The court thus found that the burden of proof fell on the employer to show that there were personal, rather than neutral, reasons behind Manousogianakis's murder. Because the employer had not come forward with such evidence, the court held that the Workers' Compensation Board had properly awarded benefits to the deceased's family.
NY State Court Forces Hospital to Produce Patient Records Relevant to Her Termination
The New York Supreme Court for New York County has held that patient treatment and other records relevant to a nurse's challenged termination may be produced by a hospital pursuant to a qualified protective order without violating federal law governing the protection of private health information. Chapman v. Health & Hosps. Corps.,2005 WL 697435 (N.Y.Sup., Mar. 24, 2005).
Jacqueline Chapman, a registered nurse in the Labor and Delivery Unit at Woodhull Medical & Mental Health Center, was fired after the hospital's suspicions regarding her failure to properly handle and administer a narcotic medication according to its policies and procedures, and allegations concerning her unauthorized possession of morphine tablets. During the administrative proceeding following Chapman's termination, the hospital refused to respond to a subpoena compelling it to produce medical records materials. The subpoena did not specify that Chapman would use the information provided solely in regard to the administrative hearing and did not contain any other patient privacy protections.
While requesting that the hospital produce the medical records information pursuant to a protective order, the New York Supreme Court for New York County indicated that the hospital's refusal to do so at the administrative hearing level was justified. The court found that because Chapman's subpoena now satisfied the privacy protection requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the law and its implementing rules would allow disclosure of these otherwise private medical records. The court thus required the hospital to produce hospital assignment sheets reflecting any assignment given to Chapman on Oct. 11-12, 2003, a list of labor and delivery unit staff on duty from Oct. 11-12, 2003, the narcotics sheets for the relevant time period, current hospital policies regarding the “infusion pump” used to administer medications and the medically appropriate narcotics count, a copy of hospital policies regarding the respective duties of the code nurse, circulation nurse, and students, and a copy of the incident report written after Chapman's alleged improper administration of medication. The court also enforced the hospital's production of the names, medical information, and treating physicians associated with those adult female patients and their infants who were present in the labor and delivery unit of the hospital on the dates in question. However, with regard to the production of this information, the court limited the patient record information covered by the subpoena to that associated with the patient whom Chapman was alleged to have mistreated. The court also asked that personal identifying information, including the patient's name, social security number, date of birth, address and telephone number, be redacted from the materials, that Chapman use the records produced only during the current proceeding and subsequent proceedings related to it, and that Chapman either return the materials to the hospital or destroy them when the current or affiliated proceedings were complete.
Houston Health Inspector Who Failed 'Legal Sufficiency' Test Not Protected By TX Whistleblower Law
Texas's Fourteenth Court of Appeals has held that despite an employee's good faith belief that her supervisor was breaking the law, she could not be protected by Texas whistleblower law without showing that a “reasonably prudent” employee in similar circumstances would have come to the same conclusion in reporting the purported violation. Houston v. Cotton, 2005 WL 646096 (Tex.App.-Hous. Mar. 22, 2005).
Anja Cotton, a restaurant and food establishment inspector employed by the Houston Department of Health and Human Services, suspected that her supervisor, Juan Munguia, and the manager of the department's Bureau of Consumer Health, Chirag Bhatt, were voiding or destroying health citations in return for monetary compensation. In 1997, Cotton swore in an affidavit presented to Houston's Office of the Inspector General (the OIG) that Bhatt's leadership had resulted in lax enforcement of the city's food and health code. Based on Cotton's disclosures, the OIG found that while Bhatt and his staff certainly restricted health inspectors' ability to enforce the food and health code, there was no proof that they were being rewarded financially for their actions. The Harris County district attorney also reviewed the evidence and found no evidence of illegal conduct warranting criminal charges. Over a year later, Cotton's asserted 8-hour examination of a grocery store for possible health violations prompted Bhatt and Munguia to audit the report associated with her inspection. When they discovered that Cotton had falsified the length of her inspection, which in reality took only about an hour to perform, in order to receive overtime compensation, she was immediately suspended pending discharge. After her termination was upheld by the Civil Service Commission, she instituted this suit pursuant to Texas's whistleblower law. At the trial court level, Cotton won her claim and was awarded more than $225,000.
In reversing the trial court's judgment and overturning the award, the Texas appeals court found that while Cotton may have believed in good faith that her supervisors' activities were illegal, a reasonably prudent employee in her position, and with her training and four years of experience as a sanitarian, would not have believed that by voiding and/or failing to pursue health department citations, her supervisors were violating Texas law. Cotton was unable to prove that Bhatt and his staff were destroying or concealing these documents, or that they were accepting bribes or kickbacks for otherwise illegally disposing of the citations. The court found that what Cotton may have interpreted as a violation of Texas law might have easily been understood as a mere difference in “enforcement philosophy” between herself and her superiors.
Workers' Compensation Awarded to Deceased Employee's Family in Unsolved Murder Case
The Indiana Court of Appeals has held that workers' compensation can be awarded under the state's workers' compensation positional risk doctrine where an employee is murdered during the course of employment and that murder remains unsolved.
Christos Manousogianakis was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head at his place of employment, the Mayberry Cafe in Elkhart, IN. Upon finding his dead body, his wife, another cafe employee, also discovered that a cabinet in his office had been broken into and that $1000 in coins were missing. A single member of the Workers' Compensation Board held that because Manousogianakis was murdered in the course of employment and that his death resulted from a “neutral,” rather than a personal, risk, his family was entitled to workers' compensation benefits under the state's positional risk doctrine. After the full board affirmed this decision, the employer appealed, asserting that this doctrine was only applicable to cases involving unexplained slips and falls and that there was insufficient evidence to establish the deceased's family's entitlement to benefits.
In affirming the Workers' Compensation Board's decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the state's positional risk doctrine applies when an employee can show that his/her injury occurred in the course of employment and was the result of a neutral risk, which is inexplicable in nature rather than attributable to personal or employment conditions. The court found that “an unexplained murder is no less a neutral risk than is a more commonplace unexplained accident.” Furthermore, the court determined that sufficient evidence had been set forth asserting that Manousogianakis was engaged in work-related activities when he was killed, in that his job responsibilities required him to be on the premises in the evening in order to prepare for the morning's customers. Since his death therefore occurred in the course of employment, there was a presumption that the death arose out of his employment. The court thus found that the burden of proof fell on the employer to show that there were personal, rather than neutral, reasons behind Manousogianakis's murder. Because the employer had not come forward with such evidence, the court held that the Workers' Compensation Board had properly awarded benefits to the deceased's family.
NY State Court Forces Hospital to Produce Patient Records Relevant to Her Termination
The
Jacqueline Chapman, a registered nurse in the Labor and Delivery Unit at Woodhull Medical & Mental Health Center, was fired after the hospital's suspicions regarding her failure to properly handle and administer a narcotic medication according to its policies and procedures, and allegations concerning her unauthorized possession of morphine tablets. During the administrative proceeding following Chapman's termination, the hospital refused to respond to a subpoena compelling it to produce medical records materials. The subpoena did not specify that Chapman would use the information provided solely in regard to the administrative hearing and did not contain any other patient privacy protections.
While requesting that the hospital produce the medical records information pursuant to a protective order, the
Houston Health Inspector Who Failed 'Legal Sufficiency' Test Not Protected By TX Whistleblower Law
Texas's Fourteenth Court of Appeals has held that despite an employee's good faith belief that her supervisor was breaking the law, she could not be protected by Texas whistleblower law without showing that a “reasonably prudent” employee in similar circumstances would have come to the same conclusion in reporting the purported violation. Houston v. Cotton, 2005 WL 646096 (Tex.App.-Hous. Mar. 22, 2005).
Anja Cotton, a restaurant and food establishment inspector employed by the Houston Department of Health and Human Services, suspected that her supervisor, Juan Munguia, and the manager of the department's Bureau of Consumer Health, Chirag Bhatt, were voiding or destroying health citations in return for monetary compensation. In 1997, Cotton swore in an affidavit presented to Houston's Office of the Inspector General (the OIG) that Bhatt's leadership had resulted in lax enforcement of the city's food and health code. Based on Cotton's disclosures, the OIG found that while Bhatt and his staff certainly restricted health inspectors' ability to enforce the food and health code, there was no proof that they were being rewarded financially for their actions. The Harris County district attorney also reviewed the evidence and found no evidence of illegal conduct warranting criminal charges. Over a year later, Cotton's asserted 8-hour examination of a grocery store for possible health violations prompted Bhatt and Munguia to audit the report associated with her inspection. When they discovered that Cotton had falsified the length of her inspection, which in reality took only about an hour to perform, in order to receive overtime compensation, she was immediately suspended pending discharge. After her termination was upheld by the Civil Service Commission, she instituted this suit pursuant to Texas's whistleblower law. At the trial court level, Cotton won her claim and was awarded more than $225,000.
In reversing the trial court's judgment and overturning the award, the Texas appeals court found that while Cotton may have believed in good faith that her supervisors' activities were illegal, a reasonably prudent employee in her position, and with her training and four years of experience as a sanitarian, would not have believed that by voiding and/or failing to pursue health department citations, her supervisors were violating Texas law. Cotton was unable to prove that Bhatt and his staff were destroying or concealing these documents, or that they were accepting bribes or kickbacks for otherwise illegally disposing of the citations. The court found that what Cotton may have interpreted as a violation of Texas law might have easily been understood as a mere difference in “enforcement philosophy” between herself and her superiors.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.