It can be a very traumatic experience suffering from a personal injury, whether it be from a trip and fall, automobile accident, or otherwise. As someone who has suffered injuries, you want an attorney who will be on your side and fight for you. As in any profession, there are those professionals who are ethical, and those who might fall short of that. As a client, it is important to know what side of the spectrum your attorney falls on, in order to see whether you really are in the best hands.

Attorneys must abide by the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. These model rules are meant to keep attorneys in check, and hold the profession to a high ethical standard. If they fail to abide by the rules they could run the risk of some sort of penalty, or in the worst-case scenario, disbarment. As a Personal Injury client, you should be aware of some of the basic model rules in order to determine if your attorney is really the best fit for you.

Rule 1.4 Communication

Under this rule, lawyers must promptly inform their clients of material developments in the matter including settlements or plea offers, reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are being accomplished, and keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.

For you, this means that your attorney should be keeping you in the loop. Many times clients want to seek an update on their lawsuit and the attorney should be calling the client back promptly and updating them on a regular basis. Realistically, that is not to say that the attorney should be calling the client every day to report to them, since it is most likely that the attorney has other cases to work on as well. However, if the client feels that they haven’t been updated in a significant period of time, and have not had calls returned to them, they should consider taking their lawsuit elsewhere.

Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest

Under this rule, a lawyer cannot represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. That is, if an attorney represents Client A and Client B, if the representation of either client will be directly adverse to the other client, then there is a conflict of interest.

If an injured client is in an automobile accident, and the attorney is representing both drivers of each respective car, that is absolutely a conflict of interest. Clients should be aware of this rule, as it might not be as obvious of a conflict, like the situation with the automobile accident. If the client feels that an attorney’s representation of another client is directly adverse to their case, they should bring it to the attorney’s attention.

Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by Counsel

Under this rule, an attorney cannot communicate with an individual whom he knows to be represented by counsel, unless counsel gives permission or unless there is a court order.

As a client, if an attorney who is not the attorney representing your case tries to contact you, it is important to notify your attorney right away to see what is going on. The client should not give any information to other attorneys except their own, as those individuals probably do not have the best interests for you.

Although these are just three rules of many under the ABA Rules of Professional Conduct, a client should be aware that they deserve ethical representation by their attorney. Although it is ideal to think that all attorneys are ethical, the sad truth is that not all are.  As a client, if something doesn’t feel right about your representation, you should address it.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Your Attorney Ethical? appeared first on Law Street.

When you hear the word “FitBit,” you usually associate the physical activity monitor with fitness; however, after a recent case in Canada, FitBit might very well be associated with personal injury evidence used in Litigation.

In a personal injury case in Calgary, Canada, the law firm of Mcleod Law is using the plaintiff’s FitBit activity to support her personal injury claim. The plaintiff, who was a personal trainer, was injured in an accident four years ago. The attorneys representing her are seeking to demonstrate that her activity levels are lower than the baseline of a woman her age and profession, in order to prove damages. Among other things, Fitbit monitors physical activity by measuring steps taken by the individual wearing the device. The plaintiff’s attorneys hope to formulate a ‘quantitative representation of the claimant’s activity during their normal weekly routine.’

Logistically, the law firm is not using the raw FitBit data, but will be using analytics company Vivameterica to analyze such data. This company will analyze the plaintiff’s information and compare the data to other databases showing average activity of an individual with similar weight, age, gender, body mass index, etc.

This case is the first of its kind in that it could set a precedent for evidence of personal data collected through wearable devices in personal injury cases; however, there are many out there who are skeptical of this type of data being used in the courtroom.

Skeptics are concerned that this kind of data could lead to potential manipulation on the part of the plaintiffs, as well as false representations of activity. For example, if a plaintiff knows their FitBit data will be analyzed in court, they might be overly active so that there wearable device could pick up on such activity, in order to prove damages. In the alternative, individuals take off their Fitbit device throughout the day for various reasons. This could lead to a false read of an individual’s true physical activity.

Although this type of evidence does raise some issues, it could be an excellent tool for attorneys in proving damages, or in the alternative, for mitigating such damages. As technology advances, so too must our litigation system. It is very possible that we will be seeing data from wearable devices being used in the future.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FitBit Monitor Data to Be Introduced as Evidence in Personal Injury Cases appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday night the highly anticipated case of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson reached its conclusion. The grand jury found that it did not have sufficient evidence to indict Wilson. In light of this controversial result, there has been speculation as to whether Brown’s family will bring a civil lawsuit against Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department.

The Brown family would have to show that Wilson intentionally or negligently killed Brown. The family could sue Wilson and city officials for economic damages, such as lost future income and funeral expenses, as well as punitive damages.

Although there were no criminal charges brought against Wilson, Brown’s family might have a better chance at succeeding in a civil lawsuit due to the lower burden of proof. In criminal court, a case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to validate a criminal conviction. In other words, there must be no reasonable doubt in the minds of reasonable persons that the defendant is guilty. Contrastingly, in a civil lawsuit the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. In this case, the Brown family would have to show that Wilson was more likely liable than not.

In the past, there have been cases similar to this, where a plaintiff’s family was successful in such suits. Most notably was the wrongful death lawsuit against former athlete O.J. Simpson. Although a jury acquitted Simpson of murder, a civil jury found him liable for wrongful death of his former wife and her friend and ordered Simpson to pay $33.5 million in damages to their families.

Although the aftermath of the criminal case is still being felt all over the country, it will be interesting to see how the civil lawsuit plays out once things settle down.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In the Aftermath of Ferguson, Will There Be a Wrongful Death Suit? appeared first on Law Street.

Federal Drug Enforcement Agents (DEA) made unannounced visits on Sunday to multiple National Football League teams as part of a continuing investigation. Agents investigated the San Francisco 49ers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Seattle Seahawks. This investigation was fueled by  a class action lawsuit brought against the NFL last summer.

In May 2014, the NFL painkiller lawsuit was brought by approximately 1,300 former players claiming in essence that the team doctors “intentionally, recklessly and negligently created and maintained a culture of drug misuse, substituting players’ health for profit.” Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that since 1969, team doctors have been supplying medications in ways that constituted a dangerous misuse, and that the doctors fraudulently concealed the dangers and side effects from players in order to keep them on the field. They believe that the NFL placed priority of profit before the health of the players. Plaintiffs claim that they have sustained severe injuries from this medical misfeasance, including but not limited to heart attacks, kidney failures, and addiction. The NFL has requested that the federal judge dismiss the suit.

Among other defenses, the NFL is likely to assert that the plaintiffs are barred by the statute of limitations, which is a legal device to ensure that claims are brought in an efficient matter. Specifically, these statutes set the maximum period in which a plaintiff can wait before filing a lawsuit. If the lawsuit is not brought within the time frame then the right to make a claim on that matter is lost. In some instances, however, a statute of limitations can be extended, or tolled, based on a delay in discovery of the injury. This would enable the plaintiff to have an extended period beyond the statute of limitations to bring such action upon the defendants once injury is discovered, and to prevent unjust enrichment.

In California, the statute of limitations for a personal injury suit is two years. In other words, from the time the cause of action occurred–in this case the date of injury–the plaintiffs’ have two years to bring forth a lawsuit. The NFL will likely argue that the statute of limitations has expired, and bar Plaintiffs from bringing the lawsuit. Specifically, it would argue that some of the specific actions brought within the complaint date back to 1969, which far exceeds the statute of limitations.

Under the delayed discovery rule, the statute of limitations deadline is tolled and time does not start to run until the Plaintiffs’ discover, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injuries or harm and that it was caused by the wrongdoing of the defendants. The plaintiffs’ have argued just that. In their amended complaint, they claim that the statute of limitations should be tolled, on grounds that they had not discovered, and had no good reason to know of their injuries until recently. Specifically, they argue that league doctors did not reveal the names of medications, and there were poor records regarding dispensing medication. Thus, such acts constituted concealment, which ultimately caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

The NFL is clearly under a lot of heat at the moment. It still has the NFL Concussion Litigation going on, and the DEA’s visits last Sunday only added fuel to the fire with the current lawsuit. This case is still being heard in the northern district of California on the ruling of NFL’s motion to dismiss, but my gut tells me that there will be no dismissal. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see how the statute of limitations arguments play out, and more importantly, what actions are implemented within the NFL.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NFL Painkiller Class Action Lawsuit is a Toss Up Between League and Players appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine this: you’re in a car accident and as a result, break your arm. (Ouch.) You sue the individual who was driving the other car. The next month, you’re at a Jets game rooting for your team and post some pictures on Facebook, making one of them your new profile picture. A month later, your attorney calls you up, questioning if you posted pictures from the Jets game. As it turns out, the defendant’s demanding full access to your Facebook account to disprove your injuries. The big question is, are they entitled to access your Facebook account?

Discovery is an absolutely essential part of litigation. In basic terms, discovery fuels the arguments that each side of the lawsuit makes, by providing relevant information about the opponent. In the past, discovery typically consisted of documents, but as time and technology has progressed, electronic discovery has become more prevalent. This has raised some very interesting questions in Personal Injury Law, like the above situation.

Courts have a tough issue to handle. On the one hand, social media could be extremely relevant to a Personal Injury action. It could disprove a plaintiff’s injuries, or at the very least, make those injuries questionable. On the other hand, that is a plaintiff’s personal Facebook page. Why should the defendant have access to that personal account information?

The Balancing Act and Current Law: New York

New York courts have grappled with this issue and come up with a fairly reasonable standard in order to balance these competing interests. They have established a two-prong test for determining whether social media accounts are discoverable. First, courts must determine whether the content in the account is material and necessary. Second, courts must balance whether the production of the content would result in a violation of the account holder’s privacy rights.

For a defendant to successfully maintain access to discovery under this two-prong test, he must “establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff’s [social media] account-that is, information that contradicts or conflicts with plaintiff’s alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses, and other claims.” In other words, the defendant must show that there is content on the plaintiff’s social media account that is not only relevant to the personal injury action, but also contradicts or conflicts with the plaintiff’s claims. If the defendant can establish that, then discovery of social media accounts should be permitted.

The courts have been fairly strict with applying this standard, however. The court will not allow a defendant to simply demand disclosure of social media accounts on the basis that access may reveal information that contradicts or conflicts with a plaintiff’s claim of disability. The court has labeled such a request as a “fishing expedition” and will not allow it.

The Car Accident Revisted

So, is the defendant entitled to access your Facebook account? The answer lies within the specific facts. In the original car accident example, the content of the photograph is key. If the defendant is simply asking for access to the Facebook account because it might reveal activities that contradict with the your claim, that probably will not be sufficient for the court to demand disclosure of your account information. If your profile picture portrays you fist pumping your broken arm in the air, however, it is more likely that the court will grant access to your Facebook account, since the pictures contradict the complaint regarding your broken arm.

The interesting part about Social Media discovery is that it is an evolving area of law. As social media websites continue to develop, so too must the law. It seems that New York courts have fairly balanced these competing interests thus far, but it will certainly be interesting to see what issues arise in the future.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Be Careful What You Share to Social Media During a Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

The Ebola outbreak, which at first seemed like a distant fear, has become a reality in the United States, especially for the family of Thomas Eric Duncan. Duncan was the first individual to have died from Ebola on American soil. In the aftermath of his death, there has been speculation as to whether Duncan’s family will pursue a liability lawsuit against the hospital that treated Duncan. However, under Texas Law, it would be very difficult for Duncan’s family to succeed with any claims against the Hospital.

The Facts

On September 25, 2014 Thomas Eric Duncan went to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital where he was treated for a fever, abdominal pains, and vomiting–all symptoms of Ebola. Duncan was not tested for Ebola, and in fact, he was sent home with pain relievers and antibiotics. He was diagnosed with Ebola after returning to the hospital when his symptoms worsened. On October 8, 2014, Duncan died.

The Law

In 2003, Texas passed a tort reform that gave an extra layer of protection against civil liability lawsuits for Emergency Room doctors and nurses. Under this reform, plaintiffs must demonstrate “willful and wonton” conduct in order to prove negligence. This is one of the highest legal burdens to prove in the country.

This standard requires that the individual’s conduct creates “an extreme risk of danger” and that the individual has “actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved and chooses to proceed in conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.” Relating to this situation, to successfully prove negligence, Duncan’s family must show that the ER doctors not only created an extreme risk of danger, but that they actually knew about the danger, and continued to act in a manner that demonstrated their indifference toward Duncan. An important aspect of this question would be to determine what exactly the doctors and nurses knew about Duncan’s condition during his first visit.

Even if liability were proven, the tort reform established a $250,000 cap for non-economic damages in a healthcare lawsuit. So even if Duncan’s family were able to prove willful and wonton negligence, they would most likely be limited to $250,000 in damages.

The Reality

The harsh reality is that Duncan’s family probably has a slim chance at succeeding in a lawsuit against the hospital. On one hand, the 2003 tort reform has been a major success. It has caused medical malpractice claims to decrease by nearly two thirds between 2003 and 2011. On the other hand it begs the question, “at what cost?”

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Slim Chance of Legal Recourse for Family of First American Ebola Death appeared first on Law Street.