The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington recently denied a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in a pending challenge to Washington’s COVD-19 vaccine mandates, Wise v. Inslee, No. 2:21-CV-0288-TOR, 2021 WL 4951571, at *7 (D. Wa. Oct. 25, 2021). (A copy of the Court’s order can be accessed here.)
Case Background
The Wise plaintiffs are challenging Governor Jay Inslee’s series of proclamations that mandate COVID-19 vaccination for educators, health care workers, and various state employees and contractors except for those who may be entitled to an accommodation under the Americans with
Continue Reading Eastern District of Washington Finds COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Reasonable
Latest from HeplerBroom, LLC - Page 6
No Southern Hospitality: The District of South Carolina Denies Plaintiffs’ Requests to Enjoin Local Governments’ Vaccine Mandates
On October 21, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina denied plaintiffs’ requests for a temporary restraining order against various municipal COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Bauer v. Summey, No. 2:21-CV-02952-DCN, 2021 WL 4900922, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 21, 2021). The district court’s opinion is available here.
Case Background
In September 2021, the City of North Charleston, the City of Charleston, the County of Charleston, and the St. John Fire District announced personnel policies that required their employees and affiliated personnel be fully vaccinated. Id. at *1-2. Each of the respective policies provided a process for requesting
Continue Reading No Southern Hospitality: The District of South Carolina Denies Plaintiffs’ Requests to Enjoin Local Governments’ Vaccine Mandates
Challenging the Science Behind EPA’s Risk Evaluation for Chrysotile Asbestos
In December 2020, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its “Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part I: Chrysotile Asbestos” (“Report”). The EPA concluded that chrysotile asbestos presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” (see Report, pg. 229). The Report addresses two common uses of chrysotile: (1) removing and replacing sheet gaskets, and (2) removing and replacing brake linings.
On its face, the report seems difficult to navigate. However, a closer look raises challenges to both the science of the report and how its information could be used by defense if a plaintiff relies on it.
Continue Reading Challenging the Science Behind EPA’s Risk Evaluation for Chrysotile Asbestos
Not Ducking the Issue: The District of Oregon Denies Requests to Enjoin State’s Vaccine Mandates
On October 19, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order against Oregon’s COVD-19 vaccine mandates. Williams v. Brown, No. 6:21-CV-01332-AA, 2021 WL 4894264, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 19, 2021). (The district court’s opinion is available here.) The day before, another Court in the district denied a similar request for injunctive relief. Johnson v. Brown, No. 3:21-CV-1494-SI, 2021 WL 4846060, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 18, 2021). (That opinion is available here.)
Case Background
On August 13, 2021, Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued an Executive Order
Continue Reading Not Ducking the Issue: The District of Oregon Denies Requests to Enjoin State’s Vaccine Mandates
First Circuit Affirms Maine’s COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate
On October 19, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction that sought to prevent enforcement of Maine’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Does 1-6 v. Mills, No. 21-1826, 2021 WL 4860328, at *1 (1st Cir. Oct. 19, 2021). The First Circuit opinion is available here.
The state of Maine has long required that healthcare workers be vaccinated against infectious diseases. Id. And in doing so, Maine “has not allowed religious or philosophical exemptions to any of its vaccination requirements since an amendment to state law in May 2019 (which
Continue Reading First Circuit Affirms Maine’s COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate
Illinois Supreme Court Allows Plaintiff to Redesignate a 213(f)(3) Controlled Expert to 201(b)(3) Consultant During Discovery
by Christin E. Doyle
When defending a client, it is critical to gather information about the plaintiff’s
experts in order to identify weaknesses in the case and determine a winning strategy. This is especially true in medical malpractice lawsuits, where many outcomes are driven by expert opinion and testimony. With this in mind, defense counsel should become familiar with a 2020 Illinois Supreme Court decision dealing with an issue of first impression that allowed a plaintiff to redesignate a Rule 213(f)(3) controlled expert to a Rule 201(b)(3) consultant. In this particular case, the redesignation caused a physician’s report and opinions
Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Allows Plaintiff to Redesignate a 213(f)(3) Controlled Expert to 201(b)(3) Consultant During Discovery
Illinois Supreme Court to Decide Viability and Scope of Gant: Negligent Training Claims Against Employers for Employee’s Motor Vehicle Accident
In Gant v. L.U. Transport, Inc., 331 Ill. App. 3d 924, 930 (1st Dist. 2002), the Appellate Court held that a plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident cannot maintain an action for negligent hiring, negligent retention, or negligent entrustment against the defendant’s employer if the employer accepts responsibility for the employee’s conduct. In other words, once an employer admits responsibility for any negligence of its employee, liability under alternate theories of negligent entrustment, hiring, or retention should be dismissed as irrelevant. Id. at 927-28, 930. Relying upon Gant, employers have successfully sought dismissal of alternate theories of negligent hiring,
Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court to Decide Viability and Scope of Gant: Negligent Training Claims Against Employers for Employee’s Motor Vehicle Accident
Are Arbitration Clauses in Attorney Engagement Letters Enforceable?
Arbitration clauses have become ubiquitous in modern commerce. The legal services industry is not immune from this trend. Today, many law firms include arbitration provisions in their client engagement letters. This trend raises the important question: are such arbitration provisions enforceable in the face of a legal malpractice claim? If so, under what circumstances are such arbitration provisions enforceable?
Judicial and Advisory Ethics Opinions
Recent court decisions on the subject have made clear that arbitration provisions may indeed be enforceable in the context of legal malpractice claims brought by clients. See e.g., Delaney v. Dickey, 244 N.J. 466 (2020). However,
Continue Reading Are Arbitration Clauses in Attorney Engagement Letters Enforceable?
Missouri’s “No Pay, No Play” Law Provides Severe Consequences for Motorists Without Auto Liability Insurance
In 2013, Missouri enacted Section § 303.390 also known as the “No Pay, No Play” law. This law prohibits uninsured motorists from collecting damages for non-economic losses when involved in a motor vehicle accident. In other words, an uninsured driver can still recover damages for property losses, medical bills, and lost wages against the at-fault party but is otherwise barred from obtaining damages for pain and suffering. Under the law, those damages are “waived” by the Plaintiff for failing to have liability insurance while operating a motor vehicle. This law can be all the more painful to a Plaintiff at
Continue Reading Missouri’s “No Pay, No Play” Law Provides Severe Consequences for Motorists Without Auto Liability Insurance
Employers, Consider These Legal Issues Before Mandating COVID-19 Vaccinations
The spread of the Delta variant in the United States is creating another spike in COVID-19 cases and deaths. This in turn has caused an increased push to get people vaccinated.[1]
Although private employers generally may mandate vaccination in most jurisdictions, this is not without limitation. The following are some important issues for private employers to consider before implementing a vaccine mandate.
Discrimination and Reasonable Accommodations
Employers must ensure that any policy mandating vaccination is compliant with applicable federal, state, and/or local laws or regulations that prohibit discrimination against protected classes. That means policies should be applied in a
Continue Reading Employers, Consider These Legal Issues Before Mandating COVID-19 Vaccinations
“Direct Physical Loss” Required to Trigger Coverage for Covid-19 Claims
During the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 and 2021, governors throughout the United States ordered many businesses deemed non-essential to close their doors. As a result, many of these businesses sought relief from their insurance providers by making claims under Building and Personal Property and Business Income coverage forms. Nationwide, policyholders and insurance companies have litigated the issue following an overwhelming number of claims and coverage denials. A 2020 case out of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [Sandy Point Dental, PC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20 CV 2160, 2020 WL 5630465, at
Continue Reading “Direct Physical Loss” Required to Trigger Coverage for Covid-19 Claims
Plaintiffs Take A Chance: The Development of Nonpattern Jury Instructions on the Loss of Chance Doctrine
by Susan A. Wagener
In a recent decision, the Illinois Appellate Court First District held that a trial court’s failure to issue a loss of chance jury instruction denied the plaintiff a fair trial, and in so doing, reversed longstanding precedent that the Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction on proximate cause properly states the law in loss of chance medical malpractice cases. Bailey v. Mercy Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 2020 IL App (1st) 182702, ¶ 3. In doing so, the court found that the Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction on proximate cause does not distinctly inform the jury about loss of chance
Continue Reading Plaintiffs Take A Chance: The Development of Nonpattern Jury Instructions on the Loss of Chance Doctrine
Illinois Governor Signs SB0072, Amending 735 ILCS 5/2-1301 Providing For Prejudgment Interest To Personal Injury Plaintiffs
by Stephanie W. Weiner
On May 28, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed SB 0072 into law. This provision amends 735 ILCS 5/2-3103 and provides for prejudgment interest of 6% for personal injury cases. Interest runs from the date the complaint is filed. Accrual of interest is tolled if a case is voluntarily dismissed. This legislation serves to impose interest on most elements of damages, including future damages, non-economic damages, and medical bills. It does not apply to punitive damages, sanctions, statutory attorneys’ fees, or statutory costs. It also does not apply to claims against the State, local government, school districts,
Continue Reading Illinois Governor Signs SB0072, Amending 735 ILCS 5/2-1301 Providing For Prejudgment Interest To Personal Injury Plaintiffs
Murder, Intrigue, Wrongful Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, and …… Insurance Coverage???
Insurance coverage issues don’t often deserve such a headline, but this case is, well – different.
Case Background
If you lived in Missouri between 2011 and 2013, you’ll likely remember the horrible murder of Betsy Faria. She was killed inside her home in Troy, Missouri, two days after Christmas 2011. She’d been brutally stabbed 55 times. Betsy’s husband, Russ Faria, was convicted of the crime in 2013, but the conviction was overturned. He was acquitted in a retrial two years later. Russ spent more than three years in prison. There’d long been suspicion that Betsy’s friend Pam Hupp was involved
Continue Reading Murder, Intrigue, Wrongful Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, and …… Insurance Coverage???
Four Appellate Decisions Could Alter the Current Landscape for Claims Under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) establishes safeguards and procedures relating to the retention, collection, disclosure, and destruction of biometric data. 740 ILCS 14/15. Passed in October 2008, BIPA is intended to protect a person’s unique biological traits – the data encompassed in a person’s fingerprint, voice print, retinal scan, or facial geometry. Id. But in the last few years, BIPA – with its statutory penalties of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation – has quickly become the bane of corporate defendants. The situation became even worse after the Illinois Supreme Court’s Rosenbach
Continue Reading Four Appellate Decisions Could Alter the Current Landscape for Claims Under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
Prejudgment Interest Legislative Developments in Illinois: The Prejudgment Interest Ball is Back in Governor Pritzker’s Court
On March 25, 2021, Illinois Governor Pritzker vetoed House Bill 3360 (H.B. 3360) regarding prejudgment interest on personal injury and wrongful death cases. The Legislature, however, was quick to amend and pass another iteration of the bill, Senate Bill 72 (S.B. 72), which they sent to Governor Pritzker on April 1, 2021. ( S.B. 72 can be read here.) The purpose of H.B. 3360 and S.B. 72 is to amend the Illinois statute 735 ILCS 5/2-1303 by applying post-judgment interest. If signed by the Governor, S.B. 72 would allow a plaintiff in a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit
Continue Reading Prejudgment Interest Legislative Developments in Illinois: The Prejudgment Interest Ball is Back in Governor Pritzker’s Court