Litigation and Medical Funding: The Often Overlooked but Critical Distinction Between Discoverability and Admissibility
Litigation and medical funding have been hot topics in the legal world for some time. In its most basic form, litigation funding allows a plaintiff to obtain a cash advance from a third-party lender while their case is pending to cover expenses like medical bills, while medical funding primarily assists the medical provider by purchasing that provider's accounts receivables at a much lower rate, providing immediate payment to the provider (versus the provider having to wait until settlement of plaintiff's case), and allowing the plaintiff to treat on a lien basis. In exchange, the plaintiff agrees to repay the third-party lender from any proceeds recovered. Typically, these advances are non-recourse - meaning that the lender is not entitled to any amount above what is recovered or is not entitled to any recovery if the plaintiff does not recover. However, as noted by multiple sources, the involvement of these companies as sources of funding for litigation has raised serious ethical concerns, including allowing a third-party to exercise influence or control over the litigation. ... Continue Reading
Starting and running a business is a complex venture that comes with many daily challenges. But, long-term planning to ensure a smooth transition out of a business is an even greater challenge, one that is often ignored until it is too late. Some entrepreneurs start out with the assumption they are going to sell their company within a few years, but this usually does not happen, and unfortunately, most business owners do not have an end-game. The most common reasons entrepreneurs and business owners lack of long-term planning are: (i) fear of failing in the short-term; (ii) day-to-day operations keep them busy, preventing them from focusing on their long-term goals; (iii) they do not have a clear idea of what to do with their business, specifically whether to sell to management, employees, or a third-party, or pass it on to their children. ... Continue Reading
Steve Miller, serving as counsel for Milliken & Company, urge the high court to reverse the Court of Appeals decision, arguing that it "overrides the plain language of Georgia's antiindemnity statute," Georgia Code § 13-8-2 (b). That statute prohibits only indemnity agreements "1) where the injury is caused by or resulting from the 'sole negligence' of the indemnitee," which in this case would be Milliken, and "2) that relate to the construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of a building structure, appurtenance, or appliance." ... Continue Reading
Not every communication that falls within the scope of the attorney-client privilege is entitled to protection. ... Continue Reading
The Journal is a publication for the clients of Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP. It is written in a general format and is not intended to be legal advice to any specific circumstance. Legal Opinions may vary when based upon subtle factual differences. All rights reserved.
H. Michael Bagley