Friday, October 28, 2016

Nevada Day 2016


  • The Supreme Court issued a few decisions affecting low-wage earners yesterday. [RJ]
  • Acquittal for the Bundy boys in Oregon. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • For those of you not working today, enjoy your three-day weekend!

23 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. I knew the rumors weren't true. I knew you hadn't left us.

      Delete
  2. I'm at work today, but can't motivate myself to actually work. I should probably just go home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel like I know who you are

      Delete
    2. To everyone who is still at work: why the hell can't people get their stuff together and make a proper non-retained expert disclosure? That means a summary of the facts relied on (not just a reference to the medical chart). It isn't the opposing counsel's job to wade through layers and layers of non-essential facts in order to figure out which facts your expert might want to use. That means a summary of the opinions, not just a list of topics you think you want your guy to talk about. If YOU don't know his opinions (or refuse to properly disclose his opinions), I'm for damn sure going to move to exclude him.

      Delete
    3. Give example. However, it is your job to go through the medical records. The non-retained disclosure does not have to be specific like a retained expert. It only has to be general with some specifics. They are the treating doctor, so they can testify about anything in the their medical records.

      Delete
    4. Bullshit. Read the rule. It requires a summary of the facts and opinions. Pointing to records and saying "I'm going to testify from that" is not a summary of either the facts or opinions. For example, the records probably contain the patient's SSN and date of birth. Did the doctor rely on the SSN to come to his conclusion? Saying "he's going to talk about causation, past treatment, future treatment, etc." is not a summary of his opinions. If you want the witness to testify as an expert (i.e. as to causation, etc.) you have to disclose their opinions. The fact that the non-retained expert doesn't have to produce a report doesn't relieve you from the requirement to disclose the opinions.

      Delete
    5. Agreed, but you can't put everything in the disclosure, such as their social security number, etc.. that is why I asked for an example. The disclosure is not hard in my opinion as you merely summarize the opinion. The problem is a motion is brought every time by ID counsel. It is either to vague or they claim the language in the disclosure is detailed, so the doctor can't discuss common sense stuff not noted in the records. In addition, the opinion is always the crash caused the injury. Here is an example.

      This individual is expected to testify as a treating physician and as a spinal and orthopaedic surgery expert regarding the spinal and orthopaedic injuries sustained, past injuries sustained, and present medical condition. In the event the Plaintiff becomes in need of future medical treatment or has a permanent impairment, this individual will opine as to need to a reasonable degree of medical probability. This individual using his expertise in spinal and orthopaedic surgery will opine as to the prognosis, disability, pain and suffering, disfigurement, causation, and the reasonableness and necessity of all care and billing as it relates to the Plaintiff, and to authenticate and verify the medical records and bills. This opinion will be based on his specialty in spinal and orthopaedic surgery, certification by the National Board of Medical Examiners, certification and recertification by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery, 22 years in practice, and familiarity with the Nevada medical community and understanding of the medical billing practices in Nevada by practicing in Nevada for many years. Pursuant to N.R.C.P. 16.1 (2)(b), the said witness, being an expert witness who is also a treating physician and thereby not retained or specially employed to provide expert reporting, will be testifying as to causation based on his/her diagnosis and treatment of the patient. Said expert’s opinion as to causation may not be blatantly stated within the witnesses medical records, however, it is said expert’s opinion that the medical care and treatment of Plaintiff rendered by expert and other medical providers upon which expert relied was a result of the subject incident. This opinion is to a reasonable degree of medical probability. Said expert’s chart with all relied upon medical records is available upon request and pursuant to a valid HIPPA authorization executed by Plaintiff. Witness is submitting a C.V., Fee Schedule, and testimony history. Further, this expert is expected to testify consistent with the medical records produced in this litigation which are allegedly related to the treatment of the Plaintiff for the subject incident, and other incidents having relevance to this action. Specifically this expert relies on the medical imaging, conservative case rendered, __________________, and all diagnostic testing related to spinal and orthopaedic surgery. The facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify include any and all facts and opinions in the said medical records, and that the medical treatment the Plaintiff received was reasonable, necessary, and caused by the incident set forth in the Complaint, and would rebut any opinions rendered by any witness disclosed by any party in this action that contradict the same.

      Specific details are added in the blank space. Is that disclosure proper in your opinion? If not, what else should it say. Although, numerous judges have said it is proper.

      Delete
    6. 4:47--the non-retained expert disclosure actually has to be more specific, the actual opinions must be stated in the disclosure statement. My non-retained disclosure usually takes more than a page per doctor. Just don't want you to get your experts struck because of insufficient disclosure.

      Delete
    7. Experts are not needed. I just say a bunch of big words and then hope the referee gives me the max $10,000 allowed in small claims court.

      Delete
    8. Read the caselaw and get your nose out of State Farm's ass. A treater can testify about opinions formed during the course of treatment, including causation and prognosis.



      Delete
    9. Of course he can. But only if he's properly disclosed as a non-retained expert, which includes disclosing those opinions, and providing the summary of the facts relied upon in forming that opinion. Otherwise, the treater is a lay witness, who can testify as to what he saw, what he did, but not to what his opinions might be.

      Delete
    10. @5:46,

      You're a damn unicorn. That included the quals, the facts, and and the opinions, and it's sufficient for me. I'm just sorry it took all weekend for your comment to be approved.

      - 3:46

      Delete
    11. I heart you 3:46.

      Sincerely 5:46.

      Delete
  3. If Judge Grasty had taken the time to explain lesser and included offenses to the jury, there might have been some convictions. The article in the Sun also raised the related and valid point that charging them with 3,276,621 counts of various misdemeanor charges might have been a better idea than the grandiose overblown felony charges.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you can take over a federal building and it is not a felony? Can I take over the federal courthouse and have weapons?

      Delete
    2. "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

      Delete
    3. That area of Oregon is like having the trial in Pahrump. The Bundy's showed some rare intelligence in choosing that spot. Shark pimp your tea party underwear shows up again. Go away. Nobody values your uneducated legal opinion except maybe Voldemort. How far did you go in school and where? We value your headhunter abilities but stop trying to branch out to legal opinions or it's back to San Bernadino for you. And try not to go for the calling out for remaining anonymous card. Desperation makes for a really lousy aphrodisiac.

      Delete
    4. Bundy case was tried in Portland

      Delete
    5. Portland is one of the most liberal cities. There is huge difference between Portland and Malheur. The commentators who watched the trial noted that the USAO up there did one of the most slapdash, underprepared cases ever because the Bundys pretty much admitted every element of the crime (yes, we took it over to get their attention by stopping them from coming to work). Interestingly, Las Vegas and the Nevada District (which many would believe is much more conservative than Portland) is much more likely to completely overcharge and just choose the nuclear option.

      Delete
  4. Wolfman Jack wants to wish everyone a Happy Halloween!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Attorneys have a big say among friends and family about judicial races. Bachman has our vote.

    ReplyDelete