The U.S. Supreme Court recently reversed a decision of the 11th Circuit regarding the relation back doctrine. See Krupski v. Costa Crociere, The U.S. Supreme Court recently reversed a decision of the 11th Circuit regarding the relation back doctrine. See Krupski v. Costa Crociere, 177 L.Ed. 48 (2010), overruling Krupski v. Costa Crociere, et al., 330 Fed. Appx. 892 (11th Cir. 2009). The relation back doctrine allows a plaintiff to amend his/her complaint and add a party after the statute of limitations has run when the party to be added has received sufficient notice of the suit prior ... Continue Reading
Employee Misclassification: New Scrutiny Of An Old Problem
The Employee Misclassification Prevention Act (H.R. 5107, S. 3254), or "EMPA", was introduced in the United States Senate and House of Representatives The Employee Misclassification Prevention Act (H.R. 5107, S. 3254), or “EMPA”, was introduced in the United States Senate and House of Representatives on April 22, 2010 by sponsors, Representative Lynn Woolsey of California and Senator Sherrod Williams of Ohio. If passed, this legislation would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to make the misclassification of employees as independent contractors a violation of federal law. The law would require companies to keep record of nonemployees who ... Continue Reading
Apportionment Of Damages In O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 Upheld By The Court Of Appeals
In 2005, the Georgia General Assembly enacted tort reform. Before 2005, multiple defendants had to contend with joint and several liability where all In 2005, the Georgia General Assembly enacted tort reform. Before 2005, multiple defendants had to contend with joint and several liability where all defendants were liable to the plaintiff as individual debtors for the entire verdict. Whether a defendant had a major or minor role in the case played no part in the amount that each defendant paid. In its extreme form, one defendant could end up paying the entire judgment. Contribution existed in law among the judgment debtors, but as ... Continue Reading
Understand “ESI” Before You End Up Needing “CSI”: Changes In The Federal Rules Dealing With Electronic Discovery And Related Matters
This article was written before Drew, Eckl & Farnham individually indexed its Journal Publications.This article was written before Drew, Eckl & Farnham individually indexed its Journal Publications. Click here to view the issue ... Continue Reading
Insolvency Pool Coverage For Former SEUS Insureds
This summer, Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue signed into a law a bill that allows employers whose previous workers compensation insurance carriers wentThis summer, Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue signed into a law a bill that allows employers whose previous workers compensation insurance carriers went out of business to pay into the insolvency pool to cover claims left hanging by the insolvency. This law was largely in response to the October 2009 liquidation of Southeastern US Insurance Co. (SEUS). At the time of its liquidation, SEUS was the state’s eighth largest workers’ compensation carrier. As a captive insurer, SEUS was exempt ... Continue Reading
Driving Miss Conduct: A Glance At The Georgia Workers’ Compensation Exclusion For Injuries Caused By An Employee’s Traffic Violation
VOLUME 22, NO. 131 SEPTEMBER 2010 As a general rule, under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-17(a), injured employees are precluded from receiving workers’ compensation benefits from an otherwise compensable injury when the employee’s injury is caused by willful misconduct. However, the employer/insurer has the burden of proving that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the willful misconduct at the time of the accident was the proximate cause of the employee’s injury. Thus, the question often arises, “What type of conduct constitutes willful ... Continue Reading
Court Of Appeals Clarifies That Claimant’s Spouse Was Not Precluded From Recovering Attendant Care Services. Medical Office Management Et Al V. Hardee, 693 S.E. 2nd 103 (Ga. App. 2010).
In Hardee, the Court of Appeals held that a claimant/spouse was not precluded from recovering the cost of attendant care services which were medically In Hardee, the Court of Appeals held that a claimant/spouse was not precluded from recovering the cost of attendant care services which were medically prescribed and which the employer refused to provide. The Claimant, Peggy Hardee, was struck in the head with a cashbox during a robbery. Thereafter, she had significant memory problems which caused her to forget to turn off the electrical appliances such as the stove, and she would often become dizzy and fall. Due to Hardee’s ... Continue Reading
Voters To Decide: Significant Changes Ahead For Georgia Non-Compete Law?
Georgia businesses are one step closer in their quest to change state law governing covenants against competition contained in employment agreements. Georgia businesses are one step closer in their quest to change state law governing covenants against competition contained in employment agreements. On the final day of Georgia’s legislative session, the Senate unanimously approved a proposal asking voters to amend the Georgia Constitution to allow the General Assembly to set standards governing covenants against competition. As many employers already ... Continue Reading
Question: Does Sending A Demand For Proof Of Loss To An Insured’s Attorney Satisfy Policy And/Or Statutory Requirements?
ANSWER: THE LAW VARIES. AS A RESULT, AN INSURER MUST SEND A DEMAND FOR PROOF OF LOSS BOTH DIRECTLY TO THE INSURED AND TO THE INSURED'S COUNSEL.ANSWER: THE LAW VARIES. AS A RESULT, AN INSURER MUST SEND A DEMAND FOR PROOF OF LOSS BOTH DIRECTLY TO THE INSURED AND TO THE INSURED’S COUNSEL. The requirement that an insured produce a sworn proof of loss prior to bringing suit for the recovery a claim is an invaluable defense tool as it timely provides an insurer with detailed information regarding the substance of the claim and prevents an insured from prematurely bringing a claim. While the basis for this requirement ... Continue Reading
How Late Is Too Late To File For Catastrophic Benefits? Case Update On The Wc-R1catee And The Change Of Condition Statute
Under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-104(b), a claim recommencing benefits for a change of condition is time-barred if it is not filed within two years from the last payment of income benefits. Under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-104(b), a claim recommencing benefits for a change of condition is time-barred if it is not filed within two years from the last payment of income benefits. While is usually straightforward, it certainly has not been in the context of when a request for catastrophic designation has been filed by a Claimant in the months and years after benefits were originally cut ... Continue Reading