J&C Wins Supreme Court Appeal of Sexual Abuse Case
On May 21 2015 the Delaware Supreme Court decided that Kimberly Hecksher had a clear right of action against the Fairwinds Baptist Church School for gross negligence in supervision of the school in contributing to the rape of a teenage girl student on its property.
The case was the last of those brought under the landmark 2007 Child Victim’s Act which enabled time-barred claims based on sexual abuse of children to be brought for a period of two years in Delaware, and which eliminated the statute of limitations for civil actions based on such crimes.
The Supreme Court found that if a teacher or a school secretary had knowledge of inappropriate conduct of a teacher with a student, that the knowledge of the teacher or secretary was knowledge of the Church School. The teacher and/or the secretary had a duty to report the information to the school and the proper police authorities of the sexual misconduct.
That was true even if the misconduct and harassment was not an observation of the rape itself but only of the interaction of the teacher or other school employee with students.
Thus looking down a female students dress or making other sexual advances were all reportable and improper actions of the school employee. Thus the School could be found negligent for its employee’s knowledge of abuse and failure to report it.
The Supreme Court also found that the trial level judge should have allowed Ms. Hecksher’s counsel to more fully investigate the School and its employees (including its principal) to show the sexual misconduct atmosphere of the Church School.
The Supreme Court further found that if a school knowingly employs family members it cannot argue that the family member’s motivation was adverse to the school’s when one family member fails to report on the other’s sexual misconduct with a student, saying:
“When an employer knowingly hires spouses, it has a reason to expect that those employees will have conflicted interests. Indeed, this conflict is a justification for anti-nepotism policies at many places of employment. If the employer chooses to hire spouses or family members despite that risk, it has a duty to take steps to ensure that the employees will not put their personal relationships above their duty to the institution and the people that it serves.”
Hecksher v. Fairwinds Baptist Church, Inc., 2015 Del. LEXIS 243, *35 (Del. May 21, 2015).
The Court further held that Fairwinds could be liable for its personnel’s failure to respond to or report red flags which could indicate that Edward Sterling was sexually abusing Kim Hecksher.
“Therefore, a reasonable juror could conclude that Fairwinds’ failure to take any steps to inform its staff of their statutory obligation to report sexual abuse of students and train them on how to detect and prevent such abuse was an extreme departure from the required standard of care.”
Hecksher v. Fairwinds Baptist Church, Inc., 2015 Del. LEXIS 243, *45 (Del. May 21, 2015)
This reversal will allow Jacobs & Crumplar to continue this case and bring justice to Ms. Hecksher. It further signals to private schools in Delaware that they must educate and train their staff on the problem of childhood sexual abuse and the proper reactions should they observe red flags which could indicate a student is being abused.
Even though the window for filing claims under the 2007 Child Victim’s Act has passed, Jacobs & Crumplar continues to file cases on behalf of sexual abuse victims. If you believe you were the victim of sexual abuse, call Jacobs & Crumplar today.
Hazardous Workplaces In Delaware: Poultry Processing Plants
A June 23, 2015 News Journal (Wilmington, DE) article about hazardous workplace conditions and injuries at a Sussex County poultry plant should not be a surprise, but should be a wake-up call to workers everywhere.
First, big agriculture is replete with safety violations. Many of our current workplace legislation originated in the early 1900’s and were the result of the public revulsion at the ghastly conditions at meat packing plants where human limbs were routinely severed. The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, graphically described these processing facilities and sparked a national interest in making the workplace safer.
Over a hundred years later, work conditions have sadly not improved that much. Arms are no longer routinely severed but arms and legs are often permanently damaged by working conditions that cause a variety of injuries.
What is worse is that many of these injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, that are caused by repetitive work place motion, are far too often undiagnosed and even more often uncompensated for. Unlike a fall from a ladder that causes a worker to suffer a broken back, these injuries often develop gradually and sometimes the full effect is not obvious until after the worker has moved on to another job or even another state.
Because of this many workers do not take advantage of their right to file suit or make worker’s compensation claims. They also wrongfully conclude that unless they have lost time from work they have no claim.
Recent studies have shown that repetitive stress injuries are one of the most common workplace injuries – common yes but not commonly compensated for.
One of the most recent studies, an April 2015 report from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) confirmed the high risk of repetitive stress injuries, like carpal tunnel syndrome, in poultry processing workers. The research for this study was performed at a poultry processing plant right here in the Delmarva region.
NIOSH had already established the fact that a combination of repetitive tasks, forceful movements and working in cold temperatures made poultry processing workers susceptible to repetitive stress injuries but what they found in this study was truly alarming. Over 75% of the workers at the plant had abnormal results from a nerve conduction test, while 34% were diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also reviewed its records from this plant for the years 2010, 2011 and 20134 and found that sprains, strains, pain, soreness, inflammation, or repetitive motion injuries were the most common recordable injuries at the plant.
One problem for injured workers is that many attorneys are unfamiliar with these types of injuries. It is important that any worker confirm that his or her attorney have successfully handled these types of cases in the past.
Another problem is that in the agricultural industry there is a higher percentage of immigrants, many of whom are afraid of the legal system. Some who have immigration issues are afraid if they come forward they may be deported which is almost the opposite of what actually happens; that if one has a pending legal claim the government will put a hold on any adverse immigration proceeding.
When a juicy chicken or a tender steak appears on your dinner table, you likely don’t think much about the animal’s journey from the farm to your fork. While there has been a national conversation on the humane slaughter of food animals, little attention has been given to the more than 500,000 meat and poultry processing employees in the U.S. who labor each day in an unsafe and unjust environment.
The meat and poultry processing workforce comprises mostly people of color living in low-income communities. At present, nearly 38 percent of the industry’s employees were born outside of this country.
An unknown portion of those workers are undocumented immigrants who heavily rely on their jobs not just as a means to support their families, but as an opportunity to continue living in the U.S. As a result, the constant fear of terminations keeps workers from reporting issues, such as injuries, and forces them to be submissive, leaving them with no power to fight back.
Even though the meat and poultry processing industry has shifted from manual labor to machinery over the years, the risk for employee injury remains high. Long hours and repetitive motions, for example, often lead to chronic pains in the workers’ hands, wrists, arms, shoulders and back. The demanding schedules also cause physical and mental exhaustion.
Stress is yet another major struggle that many workers in this industry face. Keeping up with the high speed in which many facilities operate is challenging, as companies want to maximize profits by minimizing the time it takes to complete important tasks.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this industry is the existence of a poor workplace safety culture that discourages employees from reporting injuries. Corporations seem to be more concerned with the reputation of their business on paper than with the welfare of their employees. Some companies even resort to bribery in an effort keep the number of worker comp claims low.
Dangerous, stressful and oppressive workplace conditions are taking a toll on meat and poultry processing employees across the country. With limited resources and low rank, these workers are forced to work in these environments in order to earn a living. These employees deserve to have access to a safe and fair working environment.
Sheldon Silver Corruption Case Unfairly Maligns Mesothelioma Research
On January 24th, the New York Times published a lengthy article about the corruption case against Sheldon Silver, a high ranking member of the New York Legislature and an attorney.
The case is focused on an arrangement where Mr. Silver directed public money and grants to a mesothelioma research facility in exchange for mesothelioma cases which he and his firm, Weitz & Luxenberg, profited from.
The allegation that he provided state funds in exchange for personal financial gain is important to be rooted out but the article also seemed to indict the law firms that undertook protecting those afflicted with asbestos disease and mesothelioma.
The gist of the condemnation was that these law firms contributed money to research a cure for mesothelioma at Columbia Medical School in exchange for new clients to represent.
The article references that because ONLY 3,000 people a year are given death sentences with a mesothelioma diagnosis, government and drug companies consider mesothelioma a low priority.
What is wrong with lawyers who represent mesothelioma victims, who see the pain of families destroyed by this most deadly of cancers, contributing large sums of money for research for a cure when no one else will?
The fact that these law firms, both of whom are excellent trial counsel, may have obtained clients and if they were able to win their case, fees for their work, is only what they would do for any client. The article clearly states that Weitz & Luxenberg were “not accused of wrongdoing”.
We represent the public who were poisoned by the uncaring and corrupt asbestos industry and their privately paid doctors who hid the truth about asbestos for six decades.
The New York Times should have reminded its readers that it was the doctors on the payroll of the asbestos industry who are to be condemned and allow the public to understand that most of the victims of asbestos today would not have been exposed if industry and their doctor allies had not lied for decades.
L.A. Teacher Sexual Abuse Settlement Could Not Have Happened Without The Work of Investigating Attorneys
As reported by the Associated Press on November 21, 2014, a settlement of $139 million dollars was announced by attorneys representing 81 students from Los Angeles’ Unified School District.
The settlement ended litigation against the school district because of its employment and supervision of Miramonte Elementary School teacher Mark Berndt, who was arrested in 2012 and accused of blindfolding students and feeding them cookies with his semen on them.
The plaintiffs had evidence that the school district was aware for THREE DECADES of sexual misconduct by this teacher and took no action to protect students. These students were desperately in need of protection as the AP reported that “Parents had been hesitant to complain about Berndt because of a deep respect for teachers, and they were reluctant to cooperate with police because many feared deportation.”
The victims’ attorneys uncovered at least 12 incidents of sexual misconduct reported to the school and/or witnessed by school employees between 1983 and 2009 despite child abuse records having been purged by the school district. The incidents were all of a similar nature involving Berndt exposing himself and acting in a sexually suggestive manner.
What is appalling to the reader of this story is the number of years this man was employed and the failure of this school to take any action to protect these elementary school students from him when they received repeated, and similar, complaints. The School District has done an investigation and evaluation of its policies concerning sexually abusive teachers and claims this would not happen again – but 2009 was only five years ago and any reasonable school district would have been aware of the problem of sexual abuse by teachers as almost every day in the news there are reports of sexual abuse of students at public schools as well as other schools or churches.
You have to wonder what could have possibly caused this school district to have its head in the sand. The hope is that this lawsuit and the money the School District had to pay have finally caused it to wake up and make protection of students the priority that they should have always been entitled to.
Again, this is the power of civil lawsuits – to uncover enabling institutions and expose their negligence acts as a vehicle for change. Unfortunately the change comes in this case after over a hundred students have apparently been abused and had their childhoods forever ruined, negatively impacting the rest of their lives.
Fraud: The Code Word of Asbestos Companies
The Wall Street Journal as well as the New York Times business writer, Joe Nocera, have hailed the decision of Judge George Hodges of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, for exposing the supposed fraud of the asbestos bankruptcies and law suits.
This arose as a result of the bankruptcy of Garlock, Inc. and its protestation that it does not deserve to have to pay out enormous amounts to protect the individuals who have cancer and lung disorders from exposure to Garlock’s asbestos products.
Unfortunately Judge Hodges seems to have bought the same argument that hundreds of state civil courts have rejected; that the asbestos products of Garlock were not really dangerous. It is unfortunate that the desire to protect the rights of the injured from being dragged through the mud in in a court meant to protect business has resulted in the controversy in North Carolina.
First, when a person who has or had asbestos disease files a lawsuit, that suit names a number of companies to achieve full redress from the purveyors of this toxic material. It was actually the companies themselves which caused the adding of every possibly liable company to a suit as if all asbestos product manufacturers were not sued, the ones sued would try to blame others not named. Thus the need to join all manufacturers was REQUIRED.
The success of proving that the asbestos product manufacturers were responsible took over twenty years despite continued lying by the asbestos companies, just as cigarette manufactures lied for over 30 years about the dangers of their products.
After claimants repeatedly proved the liability of the asbestos companies, the companies filed for bankruptcy under the corporate friendly laws of the bankruptcy courts. As more and more claimants with asbestos diseases filed cases, large sums were put into trust to pay those injured parties some minimum compensation.
These company trusts usually paid out between 1 and 10 percent of the amounts that the particular company had paid in state court trials. Remember, the amount each paid in state court trials was NOT the full amount of the compensation to the dead, dying and injured. It was only their share under state law. This was not double dipping; it was only forcing each company to contribute its fair share.
When bankruptcy courts allowed companies to pay only pennies on the dollar the remaining defendants, UNDER THE LAW OF ALL 50 STATES, had to pay more to properly pay the injured. This is what led Garlock to file its bankruptcy. The North Carolina bankruptcy court calls foul if the lawyers for the injured did not want to divulge each and every amount received from other bankruptcy estates in estimating Garlock’s liability.
However the liability of Garlock depended on its settlements and court verdicts before it fled the state justice system. If Judge Hodges had reviewed the court dockets of the state courts that oversaw the litigation, he would have seen that the number of bankruptcy claims filed by an injured plaintiff had to be revealed and the amount received from each reported to a judge when a judgment was entered against any defendant in a case. Thus the transparency existed and exists today. To call this fraud is to ignore the safeguards in the state civil system.
It is because of this that when any person reads about “fraud” they need to understand that is a code word of asbestos company defendants to try and avoid paying fair compensation, and I am sorry to say, the misconceptions of judges who ignore the real victims: the sick and dying from exposure to asbestos.
Artificial Turf Fields Linked to Cancer and Other Potentially Fatal Hazards
In an article by Hannah Rappleye of NBC, the potentially fatal hazards of crumb rubber artificial turf are discussed.
A number of former goalies and soccer players have developed blood cancers or other types of cancer. Players – and goalies in particular – are exposed to the crumb rubber turf particles which become disturbed during play and get into their clothes, hair, and mouths.
The components of this turf which can contain benzene, carbon black and lead, and other potentially harmful chemicals and carcinogens.
What is clear from the article is that more testing needs to be done to make sure this turf is safe to play on for children and teenagers and not causing them to develop cancer.
History of Artificial Turf
Artificial turf was co-invented by employees of the Monsanto Company, Donald L. Elbert, James M. Faria, and Robert T. Wright, under the name Chemgrass as a way for children to play outdoors where grass was limited.
In 1964, the Moses Brown School in Providence, Rhode Island became one of the first institutions to install artificial turf.
However, it was in 1966 that Chemgrass took over the world of sports.
After the Houston Astros had completed their first season in the first-ever domed stadium, it was apparent that natural grass could not survive due to the lack of sunlight. Because of this dilemma, the AstroDome turned to artificial grass. The name of the material was then quickly renamed to AstroTurf.
AstroTurf became a popular fixture in the stadiums of professional sports organizations throughout the 1970s and 1980s. By 1988, however, a backlash began to develop. The English Football Association banned the material because it caused more injuries because the material was harder than natural grass. A 1995 poll conducted by the National Football League Players Association discovered that 93% of players believed playing on AstroTurf increased the chance of injury.
As a result, many stadiums began to switch back to natural grass – such as the original Giants Stadium which had previously used artificial turf since it’s opening in 1976. By 2013, every Major League Baseball, with the exception of two teams, had all but eliminated AstroTurf.
With advancements in technology, companies found a way to improve artificial grass. One of the most popular forms is synthetic turf. This material, which is composed of synthetic fibers and tire scraps, is now being supported by the NFL, FIFA, Union of European Football Associations, recreational parks and on the fields of high schools across the county. In the United State alone, there are 11,000 fields containing synthetic turf.
What is Synthetic Turf?
According to the Synthetic Turf Council, this is the latest generation of synthetic turf that features “a grass-like ground cover that replicates lush natural grass in appearance and function. When used on athletic fields, it provides a consistent year-round, all-weather playing surface built to withstand extended use without downtime for recovery.
As a landscape cover, synthetic turf provides a low maintenance, weed-free surface that doesn’t need to be watered or fertilized, and is available in styles that look like the grass types that are prevalent locally.”
Synthetic turf typically include a drainage layer, a multi-layered backing system, and resilient “grass” blades. These “grass” blades have infilled with a granular filler which is meant to resemble natural turf. The Synthetic Turf Council describes “infilled” as a process where “the man-made grass blades are interspersed with a topsoil created with sand and/or granulated recycled tire rubber or other infill materials that provide the necessary stability, uniformity, and resiliency.
Each blade customarily stands above the infill material. The typical blade length and system characteristics are determined by the specific activity requirements. In some applications, the synthetic turf system includes a pad or elastic layer underneath the turf, often in combination with lower pile height and less infill.”
What Are the Health Concerns?
Prior to the incredibly detailed NBC News article by Hannah Rappleye, there were some concerns over people being exposed to ground-up recycled tires (“tire crumbs”). The Environment and Human Health, Inc.
(EHHI) began receiving inquiries regarding “children’s exposures to ground-up rubber tires that are the in-fill material in the new synthetic turf fields” in 2007. The reason for these queries is that tire crumb contains the following toxic materials, according the New Jersey Work Environment Council (NJWEC):
- Toxic metals including zinc, lead, arsenic, cadmium, and chromium which have many harmful effects on humans and the environment.
- Carcinogens including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
- Latex and other rubbers which can cause allergic reactions.
- Phthalates which have adverse effects on the reproductive organs, lungs, kidneys and liver.
The EHHI notes that exposure to these materials from workers in the rubber fabrication industry and in the rubber reclamation industry have resulted in “a spectrum of health effects, ranging from severe skin, eye, and respiratory irritation to three forms of cancer”
The NJWEC went as far to advise in 2008 that because of issues of “toxicity, movement, heat, cost, friction, sanitation, lifespan, maintenance, warranty, disposal costs, odor, loss of habitat, combustibility, should be thoroughly addressed before any decision to purchase is made. The community should carefully consider all the options including natural grass.”
Despite these concerns, there has been little research to prove otherwise. In fact, the Synthetic Turf Council claims that there have been over 75 independent and credible studies, including those from the EPA, that have “validated the safety of synthetic turf.” The EPA Study from December 2009 stated that “the health risks from inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact with synthetic turf and crumb rubber found every test result to be “below levels of concern.”
If research has been unable to discover any health risks involved with playing on synthetic turf, then how does that explain the fact that soccer coach Amy Griffin has been able to list 38 American soccer players – 34 of which are goaltenders – who have been diagnosed with cancer?
The NBC News article quotes Dr. Joel Forman, associate professor of pediatrics and preventive medicine at New York’s Mt. Sinai Hospital, who stated:
“None of [the studies] are long term, they rarely involve very young children and they only look for concentrations of chemicals and compare it to some sort of standard for what’s considered acceptable,” said Dr. Forman. “That doesn’t really take into account sub-clinical effects, long-term effects, the developing brain and developing kids.”
Furthermore, there haven’t been many studies that have focused on “whether ingesting the particles by mouth or absorbing them into the body through cuts and scrapes is dangerous.” Both of these scenarios are unique for athletes such as goalies.
Conclusion
The discussion regarding the safety the artificial turf has been raised for several years. In fact, New York State Assembly member Steve Englebright released a statement on November 5, 2007 that read:
“Before we take risks with our children’s health and drinking water quality, we need to make sure that the uncertainties . . . are fully investigated.”
In 2014, similar sentiment has been echoed by the likes of Dr. Joel Freeman. “Turf fields come with a number of real risks and a number of real benefits, who also added, “And every community … has to kind of weigh the different risks and benefits.”
NCAA Reduces Sexual Abuse Sanctions on Penn State
NCAA sanctions imposed on Penn State for its role in enabling childhood sexual abuse to happen by its employee Jerry Sandusky were reduced on Monday. Based on a progress report and recommendations made by former Sen. George Mitchell the NCAA has reduced several sanctions.
Before the announcement, Penn State would have had only 65 scholarships this season, 80 scholarships next season and a full 85 in 2016. They also wouldn’t have been eligible for the postseason until 2016. Now, Penn State can play in a bowl this season and will see its scholarship limit improve to 75 this season and return to 85 in time for next season.
Penn State must pay a $60 million dollars, 112 wins still forfeited, and monitoring will continue.
The claimed reason for these reductions is that Penn State is making great progress in complying with recommendations for an improved environment for making the program safer.
This overlooks the fact that the sanctions were issued in July 2012 for Penn State’s past conduct in failing to report child abuse occurring in its property and covering up for their child abusing employee.
Penn State was wrong and deserved to be punished. Yes time has passed but the survivors of its negligence have to live with the devastation of sexual abuse for their entire lives.
Penn State should not get a reprieve for doing things it should have done so many years ago – ensuring that sexual abuse and abusers are not tolerated and making sure that the reporting of child abuse and abusers and the protecting of children is of the hignest priority, instead of its football program.
Delaware’s Child Victim’s Act: A Resounding Success but More Still Needs to be Done
After decades of sweeping the problem under the rug, Americans are now facing the grim reality of the immense cost of childhood sexual abuse. As hard as it is to believe, the most reliable studies show that one out of every four girls and one out of six boys are sexually abused before they reach age 18.
This abuse not only scars the soul but leads to lifelong problems with addiction, personal relationships, and far too often crime.
Seven years ago, Delaware became a model for the rest of the United States when it adopted the Child Victim’s Act.
This law abolished the harsh two year deadline to file a childhood sex abuse case. The lawsuits which were then filed show that sex offenders come from all walks of life: a state court judge, a famous high school football coach, a disc jockey, an OB/GYN doctor, a teacher’s aide, a public school principal, a Boy Scout leader, and dozens of revered Catholic priests.
The silent victims were people we come in contact with every day – policemen, lawyers, insurance agents, sales clerks, bus drivers, plumbers, and the little boy down the street.
Far too often, people forget that the civil tort system can be a powerful means of protecting society’s interest. Often it is very difficult, if not impossible for the criminal justice system to punish a sex offender.
Not only does the prosecution have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but there are numerous other obstacles that must be overcome before there is a conviction. With the Child Victim’s Act, Delaware has added a powerful tool to deter and punish sex offenders.
It is noteworthy that very few of the sex abusers who were successfully sued under the Act were ever punished, much less prosecuted under our criminal system.
While Delaware’s Child Victim’s Act was a major step forward, more needs to be done. It is my hope that in the next legislative session that the General Assembly will consider the following reforms:
- Remove the current special protection Delaware public schools have that allows them to negligently hire, retain and harbor sexual offenders.At present a private school, whether secular or parochial, can be held liable for its negligence, while the public school down the street gets off. This double standard must end. Our children in public schools deserve the same protection as a private school student.
- Across America in the federal courts, thanks to then-Senator Joe Biden’s signature legislation, the Violence Against Women Act, evidence can be introduced about the defendant’s prior sexual misconduct whereas in a Delaware state court this evidence often cannot be used.
- John Doe Filing. In today’s computer age, anyone can go on the public docket and learn the identity and other personal information about these scarred victims, even if they are minors. Right now it is within the complete discretion of the Judge to prevent a sexual abuse victim from filing a John Doe case.
Delaware should allow victims to freely file as John or Jane Doe, something that would not only encourage people coming forward but would also minimize further injury and embarrassment to those already scarred young children.
Finally, while the money obtained in a civil lawsuit is important, especially to get much needed medical care and to compensate a victim for a lifetime of loss, often the most important thing is that the victim is finally able to confront his abuser. For the first time in his life, it is the victim who has the power over the abuser and not the other way around.
Could Obamacare Cause A Rise in Medical Malpractice Claims?
The Affordable Care Act has been in the news for several years now: First a key piece of legislation of then candidate Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, the Act was signed into law after President Obama took office over the objections from Republicans.
Then the constitutionality of the Act was challenged in by several states and conservative organizations and was then challenged by several states and Conservative organizations in federal court.
In the summer of 2013, the central portions of the Act (popularly called “Obamacare”) were upheld, although challenges to its implementation still remain.
If Obamacare remains the law of the land, more people will be entering the healthcare market. While this means more people will be seeing doctors and receiving treatment, which is a good thing, it will very likely result in an increase in medical malpractice claims as indicated in a piece in the Insurance Journal entitled, “How Healthcare Reform is Challenging Medical Malpractice.”
For example, through early April of this year, seven to eight million Americans had signed up for healthcare insurance and about 25% of them had never had insurance before. Within a few years that number will be about 22 million.
Along this record number of new people seeing doctors will undoubtedly come more medical practice claims.
Part of the problem may be that many individuals will no longer just see one doctor who diagnose him or her and treats him or her, but several different doctors — meaning there is no continuity of care. This could lead not only to the de-personalization of medical care, but also an increase in the number of medical malpractice claims.
Lawyers, patients, and individuals need to be aware of all this. While there may be an increase in the number of “claims” of medical malpractice this does not necessarily mean that actual medical malpractice has occurred under the law.
Patients and would-be plaintiffs need to be aware that it will still be very difficult to successfully demonstrate that medical malpractice occurred: an opinion will still be needed from another doctor that the doctor-in-question who committed malpractice, did, in fact, commit medical malpractice.
The Insurance Journal makes it seem that medical malpractice could be the next “asbestos.” Although it might be too early to tell, I’d doubt it for a couple of reasons. First, asbestos litigation dealt with decades-long industry wide experience involving countless different companies, while a medical malpractice claim involves (generally) one doctor and one hospital.
Even if liability were spread to several doctors and hospitals, it’s doubtful that it would become as big an issue as the article suggests.
At the same time, individuals need to know that there are lawyers who will take on and try medical malpractice cases. Lawyers need to be aware the Obamacare will likely result in an increase number of inquiries from possible plaintiffs and need to be able to determine the likelihood that negligence was in fact committed.
Additionally, lawyers need to be aware that there may very well likely be several individuals who need to be sued, not just one individual doctor. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Obamacare will affect the medical malpractice cases in the years to come.
2014 Brings New Faces to the Delaware Judiciary
There have been a lot of changes in the Delaware judiciary this year.
In February of 2014, Leo E. Strine, Jr. was sworn in as Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court. He replaced Chief Justice Myron Steele. Prior to his appointment, Chief Justice Strine sat as a Vice Chancellor on the Court of Chancery since 1998 and as Chancellor since 2011.
Effective July 1, 2014, Leonard Stark replaced retiring Chief Judge Gregory Sleet, who had served in that position since 2007. Stark served as a United States Magistrate Judge from 2007-2010 and a District Court Judge from 2010-2014.
Chief Judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, Kevin Gross has also retired. His successor is Judge Brendan L. Shannon. Shannon has served as a judge on the Bankruptcy Court since 2006.
In April, Andre Bouchard was confirmed as by the Delaware Senate as Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Bouchard will replace former Chancellor Leo E. Strine, Jr. who now serves as Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court. Prior to his appointment, Bouchard practiced at Bouchard, Margules & Friedlander in Wilmington, Delaware.
In June, Karen L. Valihura was nominated by Governor Jack Market to fill the Delaware Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Jack B. Jacobs, who retired on June 24, 2014.
If confirmed by the Senate Valihura will be the second woman to sit on the Delaware Supreme Court. Valihura practices corporate law at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in Wilmington, Delaware.