Finding The Right Car Seat for Your Child

Young girl in car seat.

Is Your Child in the Right Car Seat?

Officials with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) want to help motorists find the right car seats for their children. The NHTSA now has a super easy-to-use tool on their website to help parents and caregivers find appropriately sized car seats for their children. All you have to do is plug in your child’s date of birth, height and weight, and you will be given all the appropriate options for your child’s age and size.

The NHTSA has guidelines posted for what types of car seat are appropriate for children of different ages and sizes. From birth to approximately 12 years old, it’s important to make sure your child is in the correct size and stage appropriate car seat or booster seat.

  • Rear-Facing Car Seats

    • Parents are encouraged to keep children in rear-facing car seats for as long as possible, as this is the safest configuration. Depending upon your child’s size and age, he or she could be in rear-facing seats between the ages of birth and three years old.
  • Forward-Facing Car Seats

    • When your child outgrows the rear-facing car seat, it’s time for a forward facing car seat. As with rear-facing seats, forward-facing seats should also be located in the back seat of your vehicle. When your child is ready to move up from a forward-facing seat, anywhere between ages four and seven years old depending upon size, they should move into a booster seat.
  • Booster Seats and Seat Belts

    • Continuing to keep children located in the backseat, the next step up is the booster seat. This can help to keep a child properly positioned in the vehicle’s seat, so that the seat belt fits them correctly. Children may need to ride in booster seats from ages eight up to 12 years old. Once your child is big enough to fit a in a seat belt properly without a booster seat, you can go directly to the seat belt only method. As always, parents are encouraged to keep their children in the back seat, where it’s safest.

The post Finding The Right Car Seat for Your Child appeared first on Harris Personal Injury Lawyers.

SCOTUS Round-Up 431

Monday round-up

This morning the Supreme Court begins its March sitting with two oral arguments. The first case is Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, an appeal by Republican legislators of a lower-court ruling that requires 11 state legislative districts to be redrawn to correct racial gerrymandering. Amy Howe had this blog’s preview, which was first published at Howe on the Court. Amanda Wong and Jared Ham preview the case at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, and Subscript Law has a graphic explainer. For The Washington Post, Gregory Schneider reports that “[i]n agreeing to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court said it would first consider the issue of whether the House Republicans have legal standing to bring it,” which “hinges on whether the House leaders can show they would be harmed by the ruling.”

Today’s second argument is in Smith v. Berryhill, which asks whether dismissal as untimely of a Supplemental Security Income claimant’s request for review is a final decision subject to judicial review. Kathryn Moore previewed the case for this blog. Garion Liberti and Tayler Woelcke have Cornell’s preview.

On Friday, the Supreme Court added a constitutional question to Department of Commerce v. New York, a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, instructing the parties to brief and argue whether the decision violates the enumeration clause. Amy Howe covers the order for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that “[t]he case up to now has been only a test of whether asking everyone in America about their citizenship would be a violation of two federal laws.” Additional coverage comes from Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, who reports that in another challenge to the government’s decision, a district-court judge recently ruled that “a citizenship question would lead to a less accurate count, violating the constitutional requirement of an ‘actual enumeration’ of the population every 10 years.”

For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “[w]hen the U.S. Supreme Court takes up Flowers v. Mississippi on Wednesday, it won’t be considering the evidence against [Mississippi death-row inmate Curtis Flowers:] Essentially, it will be Doug Evans’s prosecutorial tactics that are on trial, and whether he discriminated against African Americans in keeping them off the jury in [Flowers’] 2010 trial.” At Jurist, Chris Kemmitt weighs in on the case, urging the Supreme Court “to continue its long-standing commitment to the principle that racial prejudice has no place in jury selection—especially when the defendant’s life is on the line.”


  • For The New York Times, Adam Liptak writes that the challengers in on of next week’s two partisan-gerrymandering cases, Rucho v. Common Cause, a challenge to North Carolina’s congressional map, “will be making their arguments to a new audience, one that may not be as receptive as the court that included Justice Kennedy.”
  • At, Marcia Coyle reports that “[t]he Tenth Circuit Judicial Council on Friday denied 20 appeals of its earlier dismissal of misconduct complaints against now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh stemming from his nomination and confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
  • At NPR, Nina Totenberg reviews Evan Thomas’ new biography of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, calling it “an unvarnished and psychologically intuitive look at the nation’s first female Supreme Court justice, and some of her contradictory characteristics.”
  • At Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson explains that, even after the retirement of “swing” justice Anthony Kennedy, “there’s still potential for the court’s outnumbered liberals to cobble together majorities in certain types of cases, based on past votes and the newest justices’ histories.”
  • At The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner looks at a movie producer’s cert petition challenging “a conviction for defrauding Louisiana’s movie tax credit system [that] has now picked up support from 14 retired federal judges, nine criminal law professors and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.”

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Justices consider availability of punitive damages in maritime unseaworthiness case

SCOTUS weighs in on the availability of punitive damages based on alleged “unseaworthiness” of a vessel

Argument preview: Justices consider availability of punitive damages in maritime unseaworthiness case

The few admiralty cases the Supreme Court hears often address common-law questions resembling those that normally arise on land and are generally within the province of state courts. These maritime adventures tend to involve a deep journey into relatively esoteric doctrinal areas, requiring the court to determine its proper judicial role as well as to make appropriate substantive choices.

This term’s second admiralty excursion, The Dutra Group v. Batterton, presents another such occasion. On March 25, the Supreme Court will hear argument on whether a Jones Act seaman may recover damages in a suit for personal injuries based on the alleged unseaworthiness of the vessel to which he was assigned. The simplicity of that statement hides the possible challenges of the doctrinal voyage that may await the justices, depending on the course they set. The question has produced a circuit split, whose resolution will likely require the Supreme Court to interpret at least two of its recent precedents, 1990’s Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. and 2009’s Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend. The case will immerse the justices in decades, if not centuries, of maritime law regarding the various remedies available to seamen in personal-injury and wrongful-death cases and their sources in general maritime and federal statutory law.

Christopher Batterton, a seaman, allegedly injured his hand while working on a dredge vessel to which he had been assigned. Batterton sought recovery from his employer, The Dutra Group, under a familiar trilogy of maritime remedies: maintenance and cure; the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 30104; and unseaworthiness. Maintenance and cure is a limited, but strict-liability, quasi-contractual remedy that allows a seaman who is injured or falls ill in service of the ship to recover food, lodging and medical treatment until he is cured to the extent possible. The Jones Act authorizes a seaman to sue an employer for negligence, and the unseaworthiness doctrine allows recovery if injury results from a condition that renders the vessel not reasonably fit for its intended purpose. Maintenance and cure and unseaworthiness are judge-made doctrines; Congress passed the Jones Act in 1920. The Jones Act and the unseaworthiness doctrine allow a seaman recovery that compensates for loss from injury or wrongful death attributable to the employer. These damages differ from, and are more extensive than, the allowances for some basic living expenses and medical care that the more limited maintenance-and-cure action confers.

In addition to seeking compensatory relief, Batterton attributed the alleged unseaworthiness of the vessel to willful and wanton misconduct and sought punitive damages based on that theory only. That decision ultimately transformed this case from a standard maritime personal-injury dispute into a controversy worthy of certiorari. The district court denied Dutra’s motion to strike the punitive-damage count but certified that decision for interlocutory appeal, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit accepted.

The question, whether a Jones Act seaman could recover punitive damages for an injury attributable to vessel unseaworthiness, shined a spotlight on Miles and Townsend. In Miles, the Supreme Court, 8-0, denied recovery of nonpecuniary damages for loss of society in an unseaworthiness wrongful-death action and for lost future income in an unseaworthiness survival action. It reasoned that because such damages are not available in a congressionally created Jones Act wrongful-death suit, they should be unrecoverable under the alternative tort theory of general maritime law unseaworthiness.

In Townsend, however, the Supreme Court concluded, 5-4, that punitive damages are available for breach of the duty under general maritime law to provide maintenance and cure.

Miles did not discuss punitive damages. The four Townsend dissenters concluded that the Jones Act precludes punitive damages, but the majority, having determined that issue not to be decisive, specifically did not address it.

The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. In ruling that punitive damages may be awarded to seamen for personal injuries in a general maritime unseaworthiness action, the appellate court followed its pre-Miles precedent, in part because it found Townsend the more dispositive Supreme Court decision. The 9th Circuit read Townsend as limiting Miles to claims for loss of society and lost future earnings in unseaworthiness actions and not foreclosing punitive damages in general maritime law actions. In the 9th Circuit’s view, Miles precluded nonpecuniary damages in unseaworthiness actions but did not bar punitive damages because they do not compensate the injured party for a loss.

The 9th Circuit’s conclusion put it at odds with decisions in other circuits with sizeable admiralty dockets, including a divided 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit decision and post-Miles, pre-Townsend opinions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd and 6th Circuits, which had concluded that Miles precluded punitive-damage claims in general maritime unseaworthiness or negligence actions.

In its Supreme Court brief, Dutra argues that punitive damages are unavailable in general maritime law unseaworthiness actions. It identifies as a basic premise of Miles the separation-of-powers concern that admiralty courts should follow related congressional limits in shaping general maritime law in analogous areas and should preserve maritime uniformity. Although Miles did not involve punitive damages, Dutra interprets it as signaling that damages available in a judge-made unseaworthiness action are limited to those Congress allowed under the Jones Act. Because the Jones Act, like the Federal Employers Liability Act on which it was based, has been construed to preclude punitive damages, Miles’ command of judicial deference to congressional judgments dictates the same result for an unseaworthiness action.

Dutra construes Townsend as applying to a maintenance and cure, not unseaworthiness, action and as leaving Miles in place. The maintenance-and-cure remedy involved in Townsend was an ancient doctrine that predated the Jones Act’s statutory negligence action and furnished a distinct recovery from that provided under the Jones Act. By contrast, the unseaworthiness remedy at issue in Miles and Dutra presents an alternative to Jones Act recovery for the same injury and incident, one that courts created in its current form after Congress had provided the statutory negligence remedy.

For his part, Batterton sees Townsend as the relevant precedent and concludes that it allows a seaman to recover punitive damages in an injury action for breach of the general maritime law duty to furnish a seaworthy vessel. He argues that Townsend establishes that the long-standing availability of punitive damages at common law extends to maritime claims, including personal-injury claims, absent evidence of exclusion. Townsend deemed Miles inapplicable when the general maritime cause of action and the remedy were well established prior to adoption of the Jones Act, as Batterton argues was true of unseaworthiness and punitive damages. Dutra responds that the unseaworthiness remedy was transformed beginning in the 1940s and that no established history of punitive damages in unseaworthiness actions predated the Jones Act.

Batterton maintains that Townsend rejected the argument that Miles precluded punitive damages in general maritime personal-injury actions. Instead, Miles focused simply on the scope of the general maritime law wrongful-death remedy the Supreme Court created in 1970 in Moragne v. States Marine Lines Inc. to coincide with federal statutory wrongful-death remedies. Because congressional action had shaped the creation of the general maritime law remedy, the court naturally tailored it to reflect those statutory wrongful-death actions. Batterton would confine Miles to the wrongful-death context. Dutra argues that permitting punitive damages in a seaman’s personal-injury, but not wrongful-death, action would be nonsensical and would contravene a purpose of Moragne: to harmonize recovery for injury and wrongful death.

Although Batterton argues that punitive damages are recoverable in an unseaworthiness injury action even if they are not available under the Jones Act, he also challenges Dutra’s premise that the Jones Act precludes awarding punitive damages. On the contrary, he maintains, the FELA and Jones Act allow the recovery of “damages,” which includes punitive relief. Batterton devotes 10 pages of his 50-page brief to arguing that punitive damages are permitted under the Jones Act and the FELA. Dutra replies that courts have never suggested that punitive damages were available under those two statutory remedies since Congress created them a century ago.

Batterton argues that punitive damages advance significant maritime policies, especially regarding personal-injury and wrongful-death claims of seamen. Dutra cautions that making punitive damages available in unseaworthiness actions would prompt potential defendants to overdeter harm by taking wasteful precautions or foregoing valuable commerce and would harm the economy, the environment and national security.

Although all nine of the current justices joined the court after Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the decision in Miles, five of them participated in Townsend. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined. Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

The parties’ briefs suggest various possible outcomes. The course the court takes is likely to depend on how it construes its two most applicable precedents, how it understands the history of maritime personal-injury and wrongful-death remedies, and how it sees its role in maritime matters.


Past cases linked to in this post:

Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009)
Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990)
Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375 (1970)

The post Argument preview: Justices consider availability of punitive damages in maritime unseaworthiness case appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Justices add constitutional question to citizenship on the census case

Justices add constitutional question to citizenship case

The citizenship question on the census issue just hit center stage

On April 23, 2019 the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the challenge to the decision to reinstate a question about citizenship on the 2020 census. The justices had originally granted review to decide whether that decision violated federal laws governing administrative agencies, but today the justices announced that they will also consider whether the decision violates the Constitution.

The justices’ order adding the constitutional issue to the case came four days after U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco sent a letter to Scott Harris, the clerk of the Supreme Court. The letter informed Harris (and, by extension, the justices) that a federal district court in California had ruled that the addition of the citizenship question violates both federal administrative laws and the Constitution’s enumeration clause, which requires the “actual Enumeration” of the U.S. population every 10 years, to allow congressional representatives to be evenly divided among the states. The only way to finally resolve whether the federal government can bring back the citizenship question, the government stressed, is to have the justices take up the constitutional issue too: Otherwise, even if the Supreme Court were to agree with the federal government that the citizenship question does not violate federal administrative laws, lower courts could still rely on the enumeration clause to block the government from including it.

With the June 2019 deadline to finalize the census questionnaire looming, the government continued, the best course of action would be for the justices to add the constitutional issue to the case slated for oral argument on April 23, which hails from a federal district court in New York. That is exactly what the justices did today, giving the challengers – states and civil rights groups, led by New York – an extra 2000 words to address the issue in their briefs, which are due on April 1. The justices gave the federal government (which had already addressed the enumeration clause in its opening brief) an extra 1000 words in its reply brief.

This post was first published at Howe on the Court.

The post Justices add constitutional question to citizenship case appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Medicare Liens Attached to a Workers’ Compensation Claim

Medicare Liens and Workers Comp Claims

The next lien type I will be discussing in this set of sites will be Medicare. Medicare is a benefit under federal law which, generally, is provided to individuals reaching 65 years old or when that person is determined to be eligible for Social Security Disability benefits.

Social Security Disability recipients are eligible for Medicare in the majority of instances following a two-year waiting interval. Medicare has the right under national law to recover some money they pay for medical treatment that they believe is something which should have been paid with a workers’ compensation insurance carrier.

When Medicare is concerned it is completely necessary at the very start of a claim which the worker tell her or his attorney they are Medicare eligible. Most attorneys now ask that issue at the beginning, however if they do not it is totally essential for the employee to tell the lawyer so that steps can be taken.

The first step the lawyer will take would be to notify Medicare throughout the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, otherwise called CMS. Upon notice from a lawyer CMS will start a file and supply the attorney with advice as to any obligations claimed to be produced by Medicare for injuries covered by Workers’ Compensation. The obligations Medicare wants to recover are called conditional obligations.

With the participation of Medicare, liens can arise without the worker’s knowledge and with no worker specifically requesting therapy from Medicare. As an example, even a employee who is covered by therapy by means of a workers’ compensation carrier may see their family physician for unrelated problems. The employee might mention the simple fact they have compensation claim, and in several situations the doctor notes injury and someone in that doctor’s clerical personnel will record it as a code and submit an application to Medicare together with the non-work related troubles. Bingo, Medicare has a lien.

Accordingly, when an injured worker has been treated for non-work relevant conditions through their family physician or other physicians for an unrelated non-work condition it is absolutely crucial that no mention be made of the job accident in such a manner that might get the doctor to remember that in his or her chart.

Apparently, it is absolutely necessary that Medicare liens be determined and honored. Sometimes it is possible to reduce or eliminate them completely. Nevertheless, in no circumstance should they be disregarded.

Medicare, like ERISA from the very first blog in this show , is covered by federal legislation and they can have national enforcement of such a lien. Other items Medicare can perform would be to stop gains until the repayment was reached. That is something nobody would like to happen. Accordingly, it is absolutely crucial that if cure, for that reason, be compensated by Medicare the necessary steps are required to manage that situation.

One unfortunate characteristic of dealing with Medicare liens is the fact that a last quantity of conditional payments sought to be recovered isn’t given until later a workers’ compensation situation evolves. This absolutely does not make sense, and everybody understands that, however under Medicare guidelines, when a workers’ compensation situation is going to settle the attorney will contact Medicare for an overview of up-to-date amounts paid.

Unfortunately, Medicare won’t offer a complete”final-final” amount when they have been served with a copy of the purchase shutting the workers’ compensation case. Employees should be aware that even when money is taken from a settlement to be reimbursed to Medicare there’s still an opportunity, even though slim, which Medicare may come back with a bigger number.

That is the reason why a lot of orders have a provision that although they are shut the court retains jurisdiction should Medicare problems arise.


The Future of Legal Journalism is Here

The potential of legal journalism is here and future has arrived in the shape of, according to Bob Ambrogi, its Editor-in-Chief and Publisher, fixing a standing room only crowd of about hundred and fifty in Chicago last Thursday evening.

Over 22,000 legal bloggers at the @LexBlog network. By far the largest newsroom on the history of legal journalism.
— Ed Walters (@EJWalters) March 1, 2019

Ambrogi always wanted to become a journalist. The difficulty was that the year that he began journalism school was the exact identical season since Watergate — and Woodward and Bernstein. Everybody and his brother wanted to become a journalist.   To his surprise, Ambrogi’s application letters into the New York Times and the Washington Post went unanswered.

Future of legal journalismJust like other industries though, the Internet presented new avenues for reporting.

You can see the pride within this veteran journalist when he informed the audience there were already 22,000 legal bloggers leading to LexBlog – with a profile page for the site, blogger and business for everyone of them.

Other alternatives such as Lexology and JD Supra demand terrorists and publishers (the attorneys ) to cover to conduct and circulate their coverage. Distasteful into a reporter in mind such as Ambrogi, and preventing legal reporting for attorneys who do not have the money to pay for flow.

Even though Ambrogi practiced law for a couple of decades, he followed his passion for journalism to launch the book, Lawyers Weekly.

However there was no where pulled all of this content from law sites together. No where to find the sites, the bloggers and these own organizations.


I’m Being Fired! What Do I Do Now?

You Got Your Walking Papers; Now What?

You are called into a meeting with HR along with your own boss. You understand the axe is falling…on you. Here some do it and don’ts to take into account if you’re called into a meeting and fired:


1. Do work as long as possible.

If they’re giving you the option to work for a couple more weeks or even months, then do say yes. It’s way easier to have a job when you have work. Just make sure that you do your job while you’re there, and also do not begin copying trade secrets or confidential details. That’ll just get you in to trouble.

2. Do ask about getting your personal products. 

A lot of men and women leave their belongings behind. Security or HR might have to accompany you, however do receive your own stuff. They aren’t permitted to keep your possessions. On the other hand, if it is on your computer, your business telephone, a business notebook, or something else they own, it is theirs. They don’t have to allow you to publish or copy anything that’s in their own property.

If it is critical, keep it inside your bag, your purse, or in home so that this doesn’t happen. In the event you’ve, for example, been maintaining a log of each sexually charged remarks that your supervisor made, you might lose it now. That is why you shouldn’t keep it on the company computer.

3. Do inquire about your own insurance. 
Have you been cutting off your insurance that day, in the close of the month, or after? In case you’ve got an upcoming doctor’s appointment or appointment, you will need to understand beforehand whether or not you’ll be listed as covered.

If policy is getting cut off, it will be reinstated retroactively once you elect COBRA and make your payment. Should you paid your share of insurance at end of the month, then remind them. They can extend your insurance at least through the time you’ve paid, or refund you the difference. When no severance is supplied, do inquire about it.
They might offer it if you ask. Do not agree to ask for any amount on the spot (you are not thinking straight, remember?) You may want to speak for us to see whether you’ve got potential claims against them before you decide on an amount. If they do offer severance, request them to place it into writing. Get legal counsel before you consent to anything you don’t understand.

5. Do ask if the business has a severance plan or coverage.

You would be amazed how many have written severance programs which don’t require a release, yet they try to get you to sign one anyway. Or they try to throw at a non-compete agreement that’s not needed.

If you are already entitled to severance without registering anything, then maybe it is possible to pay more in exchange for a discharge or non-compete agreement.

6. Do inquire when you’ll receive your final check.

Some states and counties have deadlines for companies to pay, some don’t. Don’t assume you’re going to be paid in another pay period.

Additionally, if you are owed commissions, then learn if they mean to pay them. If there are deals you have made that are in the pipeline, then they might owe you money after they shut. Do ask why you are being chased.

In Florida they do not have to give a reason, but in some states they perform. But if they refuse to offer you a motive, or give you another motive than they give to the EEOC, that might assist you with your legal claims later on.

8. Should they maintain you signed a non-compete or confidentiality agreement, do ask for a copy.

You first need to understand what you signed. Many companies don’t provide copies once you sign these arrangements at the start of your employment. However, if they want you to comply, they must give you a copy so that you understand your limitations.

If they will not give a copy, or when you believe your agreement might not be enforceable, contact an employee-side employment attorney to examine your choices with you.

9. Do ask what co-workers and possible employers will be told.

It is important to know what to say to possible employers. Additionally, it is vital to ensure the company rumor mill isn’t fed with misinformation. Get on the exact identical page together if possible. Should they request that you measure, say no more.

Unless you are being offered substantial dollars in trade for a forced resignation, what is your upside? You’ll probably be disqualified from becoming unemployment. You may accidentally give up a few discrimination, whistleblower or additional claims.

Many folks think it looks better to prospective employers to state that you stepped, but who would you think you’re fooling? In this market, nearly nobody resigns with no job lined up. They’ll know something bad happened, so why make it simpler on the former company by stopping? Do not sign anything.
You aren’t thinking straight. When they shove a severance agreement, disciplinary record or other paperwork in front of you, take a deep breath, and ask for a copy to review. Take a look at it after you have had a chance to calm down.

If there is anything you do not understand, take it into a lawyer to get it reviewed before you sign. You might be giving permission that you shouldn’t, or perhaps you’ve got a leverage to negotiate for more money.

You particularly don’t want to inadvertently sign a non-compete agreement that limits your capacity to operate for a year or two, unless you know it and are getting some substantial dollars for it. Don’t yell, curse or make a scene.
You don’t want to burn bridges. You still require these folks, as far as you loathe them right now. They’ll be in your resume for several years. They’ll need to give references .

Plus, even if you tick them off they’re more inclined to challenge your unemployment. They are able to make your life more miserable right now, feel it or not. I’ve known many employees who had been fired or laid off and that ended up becoming rehired down the road. In the event you think they got it wrong, don’t claim or beg.
When they got the wrong person or there’s something you’ll be able to prove is wrong, you are able to tell them peacefully. But, very few companies will change their minds now.

If a proof is at home or is something which you want to supply in writing, then wait until you’ve cooled off, then put together your info in a business-like fashion, and send it after.

They may have a charm or grievance procedure. Practice it.

11. Sometimes, the organization will lock you in an area with Loss Prevention and say that you can’t leave if you don’t sign a thing admitting you stole inventory or did anything wrong. Don’t take action. You’re going to be fired — do not let them mislead you. “Only sign and you will still have your job,” they may say. They’re lying. The only question is whether you’ll also wind up in jail or with a large judgment against you.

If they state you can’t depart, open the door and go anyway. Should they block the way, pull out of your cell phone or pick up the telephone inside the room and call 911. If you don’t have a phone and they block your way, need to be let out. If they still won’t allow you to go, scream on top of your lungs to get help. That’s the one time I suggest making a spectacle. (Don’t touch anyone though). Finally you will be allowed out of the room. Call 911 the second you leave the premises and tell the police what happened. Then call us (or even a criminal defense lawyer if you need one) and get advice.

However, regardless of what you do, do not signal something admitting to a crime. Ever.

12. Don’t demand to say goodbye. 

You don’t have the right to have a significant farewell scene using co-workers. You are upset and will likely embarrass yourself. If co-workers approach you after you have been fired, stay calm. Do not badmouth the business or the manager. Leave with course and you may keep the doors open to come back .

While being terminated is right up there having a death in your household as one of the most stressful things that could happen to you, with plenty of self-control and a little preparation, you may help ease your transition a bit. If you do have some possible claims against the business, you won’t have achieved anything to harm your situation. More to the point, you will not have burned any bridges.


How Law Firm Libraries Can Create New Value

Creating New Value in the Law Firm Library

Votes on simplicity show fine dispersion. In contrast, votes for worth show restricted dispersion together with options above the mid-way indicate. That all rated nicely indicates the list of options is a good one. A threat in voting when all of the options are good is this lack of dispersion. With more time, one could either iterate the vote to make dispersion or unite the vote using a driven value position.

The Voting Process. Voting was by show of hands on the audience of 100+ study + intelligence professionals. Kevin Klein, the Ark conference manager and that I eyeballed the series of hands and agreed on a score.

Another highlight was outsourcing. Yes, my day job is with LAC Group, which, among other solutions, provides managed services for law libraries. I work in which I think I can have impact so my views are actually held. I believe senior law company staff must add as much value as possible. For librarians, this usually means combining deep knowledge of their companies with market knowledge and research.

Outsourcing frees up time to concentrate on higher worth activity. And especially outsourcing the more routine aspects of research, or domain specific study, lets librarians concentrate on where they could add the most value. I had a lively debate on this stage with an audience member and we had to agree to admit.

A couple of weeks ago I introduced an interactive session on how law firm libraries can produce new value at the Ark seminar Best Practices & Management Plans for Law Business Library, Research & Information Services (aka Ark Library). In this informative article, I share my slides, some session highlights the voting results of the interactive portion, and a link to my live demonstration.

Two components of our discussion stood out to me. One was the difference between presenting research results as a collection of posts with minimal or no interpretation versus drawing insights and conclusions. I feel that customers of research want comprehension, not research dumps. Most audience members, however, appeared loath to do more than collect the information. I believes that will place librarians in a lousy position as time passes. As an example, in fourteen days prior to the seminar, I met two older friends who lead company management preparation for their big law firms. Both reported pity that the response to their complex research petition was a dump of articles. Both were unhappy with how much time they had to spend synthesizing insight and meaning.

Whether you agree with the nine options and also the voting outcomes, isn’t the main takeaway here. Instead, you should take from this the significance of systematic preparation and using a clear plan . Every library / research + intelligence center needs to have a clearly articulated strategy which aligns with the firm plan and that actively attempts to boost profits. Other approaches operate – exactly what I introduced is just one idea. Whatever approach you choose, though, a one-page result that you may easily and quickly introduce to management.

  • Boost cost recovery
  • Offer fee-based solutions directly to clients
  • Support winning more pitches
  • Identify opportunities, both ones and tendencies
  • Deliver more actionable insights and fewer study dumps
  • Support firm digital offerings
  • Rationalize research + intellect operations
  • Centralize company research
  • Negotiate better contracts (I know, everyone is focusing with this)
  1. Prompt wisdom and research professionals to consider ways they could align with business strategy and boost firm profits.
  2. Rank systematically those choices, specifically mapping them by relative value and ease.

Nine Ideas to Increase Contribution to Firm Profitability. I presented nine thoughts, enumerated below, for staff discussion and voting.

Rating Ideas on a 2×two Grid. For every idea, I realized the audience about two measurements: facilitate and worth . By laying out the thoughts on these rankings, one can quickly see which ideas would be most favorable using the 2×two grid below. As with 2×two grids, the scoring is designed to put the ideal choice in the upper right hemisphere and the lowest ones at the lower left.

Session Goals. I’ve discovered my slides below and you’ll be able to listen to my presentation synced to slides at YouTube, so that I won’t pay particulars of the content here. I designed the session with two main aims:


In the Louisiana SCOTUS case, maybe the best defense is a good offense

Maybe The Best Defense is a Good Offense

Chief Justice John Roberts surprised some observers when he joined his four liberal colleagues to grant a stay of this decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in June Medical Services v. Gee. The law requiring physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals of Louisiana was blocked by the stay. The petitioners contended that the distinctions drawn by the allure court between both nations’ legislation were unpersuasive. By voting to stay exactly the Louisiana law, was signaling a retreat from his position there? Does he accept that the court’s abortion jurisprudence?

Perhaps, but there is a simpler and likelier explanation. Roberts cares a great deal about the Supreme Court. When a state court or reduced court defies or evades the precedents of the court, the court’s authority is challenged by it. Accordingly, it is easy to imagine that the chief prosecution believes Whole Woman’s Health along with also the cases it implemented — such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey — should be overruled. However, he does not take to courts usurping his court’s prerogative of determining whether and when to overrule its own cases.

In case institutionalism better explains Roberts’ remain vote than does one change of heart to the merits, then the questions posed by this symposium — if the court grant certiorari and, in that case, how should it rule? — are debatable for citizens, lawyers and scholars who, like me, believe the court shouldn’t cut back on the constitutional abortion right.

To be slightly more precise, only the first question poses a problem. The next question is simple. As I claimed in an article to get a SCOTUSblog symposium on that situation, Casey did not displace that portion of the holding in Roe that prohibits the state from imposing obstacles to abortion simply by the pretense of promoting women’s health.
Additionally, Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion in Whole Woman’s Health helpfully clarified that which was already implicit in the idea of an undue weight — that whether a law regulating abortion is inherent is based on part on whether the burdens it imposes for women in fact promote well-being (or any other compelling government interest). It is unconstitutional — because an admitting-privileges requirement does not advance the state’s asserted health fascination in any way — at Louisiana or Texas.
If I could say with confidence that a majority of the existing Supreme Court would intentionally use its abortion jurisprudence, then I would recommend the court to grant the request for a writ of certiorari in June solely for the purpose of summarily reversing the 5th Circuit. I’m unsure what to advocate, because I lack that confidence.

Should the Supreme Court deny certiorari in June, its live order would dissolve by its terms. The end result would be to deny access to legal abortion into a terrific many women in Louisiana. But that’s not all. Allowing the Circuit ruling to go into effect will embolden that court to uphold other legislation from Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. It would send exactly the same signal to other federal judges around the nation — a team that becomes much more hostile to abortion rights almost from the day, thanks to the laser-like focus on changing the judiciary of both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Trump administration.
Yet awful because a cert denial would be for abortion rights, so a cert grant poses the threat of an outright overruling of RoeCasey along with Whole Woman’s Health. More likely but perhaps equally dangerously, the Supreme Court could grant cert in June, put the case on its plenary docket, also, following briefing and argument, affirm the 5th Circuit’s judgment upholding the Louisiana law based on a unpersuasive distinction between the Texas and Louisiana legislation.
There is precedent for such a move. Although the court invoked some minor differences between the Nebraska and federal laws, the difference was at the court’s employees. In the meantime, Justice Samuel Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; flipping that the result was reversed by vote. As we have seen from Kavanaugh’s dissent in the stay order in June, he appears prepared to draw some rather nice distinctions to avoid invalidating the Louisiana diplomatic law.
That leaves Roberts as the one justice even potentially in play. By voting to grant the stay in June, he indicated that he does not believe the 5th Circuit persuasively celebrated the Texas and Louisiana legislation. Perhaps with more time he will discover some hitherto unknown distinction persuasive, but it’s also possible that he will vote to violate Whole Woman’s Health, dependent on reasoning like that in Alito’s dissent in that case, which Roberts combined. In Part III of the Whole Woman’s Health dissent, Alito claimed that the Texas law didn’t unduly burden the abortion because, among other items, dependent on one tendentious reading of this document, 95% of Texas women would need to travel”only” a distance of 150 kilometers or not to obtain an abortion provider.
It’s not easy to state whether abortion rights could be less secure if the Supreme Court at June were to feign to employ its pre-Whole Woman’s Health precedents while actually hollowing them out or were simply to overrule its abortion-rights precedents forthrightly. With the course, defenders of abortion rights could have a focus around which to rally from the governmental world.
Nevertheless, an individual should not spend much energy wondering if disingenuous program or blatant rejection of the abortion cases is worse. The Supreme Court under Roberts’ direction has tended to apply these moves in tandem, first weakening a legal doctrine or principle and discarding its empty husk.
Prior to the Court held the policy formula of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder, it first supposed to duck the issue in Northwest Austin Municip. Dist. No. One particular Holder. Before the Roberts Court abandoned the Burger Court precedent upholding agency-shop arrangements against free speech challenges at Janus v. AFSCME, it contested but supposed to employ that Burger-era precedent at Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000. If, in June, the Roberts Court undercuts however, doesn’t officially depart the inherent right to abortion, and the decision ought to be known since the opening salvo in a longer competition.
On second consideration,”opening” is the wrong word. A Supreme Court ruling upholding the Louisiana legislation in June would be the near-culmination of a near-half-century effort. Through a mixture of luck, the Electoral College, and also what Professors Joseph Fishkin and David Pozen predict”asymmetrical constitutional hardball,” Republican presidents have termed 14 of 18 justices at the previous 50 years, despite losing the popular vote at the vast majority of presidential elections during this period. Given how fundamental overturning Roe is to the Republican coalition, it is hardly surprising that that the abortion right is precarious. The remarkable reality is that it stays on the books in any way.


By Michael C. Dorf (cross-posted on SCOTUSblog)

J&J inks last-minute Risperdal deal in boy-with-breasts case

$2.2 Billion Risperdal Settlement

Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay more than $2.2 billion in criminal and civil fines to settle accusations that it improperly promoted the antipsychotic drug Risperdal to older adults, children and people with developmental disabilities, the Justice …

More here

Johnson & Johnson Settles 3rd Risperdal Lawsuit for $158M

They just got dinged with a $158 million settlement in a Medicaid fraud case in Texas for “making false or misleading statements about the safety, cost and effectiveness of the expensive anti-psychotic medication Risperdal, and improperly influencing