Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Firing Abusive Disabled-Patient Caregivers: Expos' Finds No Improvement
In 2011, The New York Times published an article exposing a troubling statistic: Less than a quarter of State workers employed by one agency to care for people with developmental disabilities were fired after they were found to have abused a charge or exhibited other egregious misconduct, even though their supervisors recommended discharge. Most remained in the employ of the State Office for People With Developmental Disabilities largely because of strong employee unions and the requirement that potential discharge cases be submitted to arbitration. On Aug. 9, the Times published results of a follow-up inquiry of the same agency, as well as of the State Office of Mental Health. Using employee disciplinary records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the Times once again found that just 23% of the 227 employees found guilty of patient abuse at the State Office for People With Developmental Disabilities were actually discharged from their positions; at the State Office of Mental Health, that number was 27%. Hakim, “State Lagging on Dismissals in Abuse Cases,” The New York Times, 8/9/13.
Advocate Files Ballot Initiative to Raise MICRA's Damage Cap
After getting little cooperation from the California legislature on the issue, Bob Pack and Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica-based advocate for victims' rights, have filed a ballot initiative that would raise California's $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. The cap, in place since the passage of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) in 1975, has not been adjusted for inflation in nearly 40 years. The referendum would tie the cap to the rate of inflation (1975″s $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages would equate to about $1.1 million today). Pack lost his two young children in 2003 when they were struck by a car driven by a driver under the influence of prescription drugs. He wanted to sue the doctor who prescribed those drugs to the driver, but was effectively prevented from doing so because suits on behalf of the not-yet-employed children would net primarily noneconomic damages.
Opponents of change are sticking to their guns. Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for a coalition of groups that back MICRA, said, “We believe the $250,000 limit on non-economic damages should remain,” because “[i]t strikes the right balance between allowing legitimate claims to move forward, while providing disincentives for lawyers to file meritless lawsuits.” Interestingly, one of the proponents for a change to MICRA is former California Assemblyman Barry Keene, an original sponsor of the law. He told the Los Angeles Times that he originally sought to alter the bill to index the cap to inflation, but that the trial lawyers' lobby, which opposed MICRA, did not want that change made; without it, they expected the bill would be so odious that it would not pass. The trial lawyers were unpleasantly surprised. Hiltzik, Michael, “It's Time to Fix California's Outdated Medical Malpractice Law,” Los Angeles Times, 7/6/13.
'
'
Firing Abusive Disabled-Patient Caregivers: Expos' Finds No Improvement
In 2011, The
Advocate Files Ballot Initiative to Raise MICRA's Damage Cap
After getting little cooperation from the California legislature on the issue, Bob Pack and Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica-based advocate for victims' rights, have filed a ballot initiative that would raise California's $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. The cap, in place since the passage of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) in 1975, has not been adjusted for inflation in nearly 40 years. The referendum would tie the cap to the rate of inflation (1975″s $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages would equate to about $1.1 million today). Pack lost his two young children in 2003 when they were struck by a car driven by a driver under the influence of prescription drugs. He wanted to sue the doctor who prescribed those drugs to the driver, but was effectively prevented from doing so because suits on behalf of the not-yet-employed children would net primarily noneconomic damages.
Opponents of change are sticking to their guns. Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for a coalition of groups that back MICRA, said, “We believe the $250,000 limit on non-economic damages should remain,” because “[i]t strikes the right balance between allowing legitimate claims to move forward, while providing disincentives for lawyers to file meritless lawsuits.” Interestingly, one of the proponents for a change to MICRA is former California Assemblyman Barry Keene, an original sponsor of the law. He told the Los Angeles Times that he originally sought to alter the bill to index the cap to inflation, but that the trial lawyers' lobby, which opposed MICRA, did not want that change made; without it, they expected the bill would be so odious that it would not pass. The trial lawyers were unpleasantly surprised. Hiltzik, Michael, “It's Time to Fix California's Outdated Medical Malpractice Law,” Los Angeles Times, 7/6/13.
'
'
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
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.