David Standiford contacted me in January 2012 to set up a meeting, and I met him and his wife at their home a few days later. David informed me that he believed that the Department of Veteran’s Affairs Medical Center in Kansas City (“VA”) had committed malpractice in failing to diagnose his lung cancer. He was diagnosed in July 2011 with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung, Stage IV T3 N2M1b. T3 means that the size of the primary tumor was a 3 on a scale of 0 to 4. N2 means that the degree of regional lymph node involvement was a 2 on a scale of 0 to 3. M1b means that distant metastasis was present. Mr. Standiford was informed that he had no realistic chance of survival and any treatment would be palliative in nature and given one to three years to live.
In order to bring a claim against the United States of America (“Government”) (or any state or municipality for that matter) there must be an exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and you generally have to follow certain procedures in order to prefect a claim. In Mr. Standiford’s case, the exception to sovereign immunity to bring a claim against the United States of America falls under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. To have standing to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit against the Government, you must first file an administrative claim with the agency who you believe committed the malpractice. Once that claim has been denied, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) you have six months within which to 1) appeal the administrative decision, or 2) file a lawsuit against the Government. Should you appeal the decision, you have six months from the denial of the appeal to file your lawsuit against the Government pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 14.9.
The Lawsuits Continue
2012 NOVEMBER 12
by Paul D. Anderson Law, LLC
As each week passes, more former players jump on the concussion litigation bandwagon. More than 30% of all former players have filed a concussion-related lawsuit against the NFL.
The putative plaintiffs could reach 50% by the time the preemption issue is determined, although it appears that the soliciting of clients has digressed.
Nonetheless, there was a solid group of former players that recently filed suit. In the last two weeks, 8 complaints were filed against the NFL, which included 100-plus former players. Some of the more recognizable names include the following:
Former State Senator of Missouri, and long-time Kansas City Chiefs’ quarterback Bill Kenney. Kenney is represented by his son, William Kenney.
In order to make an informed decision if you find yourself in this situation, you need to have at least a basic knowledge of the constitution and the laws of your state. It is also helpful to analyze the progression of a typical DWI/DUI case.
In order for an officer to stop someone, whether it be a driver or any other pedestrian walking down the street, they need to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is currently being committed. Reasonable Suspicion is present “when law enforcement officers have knowledge of specific and articulable facts which, when taken together with rational inferences from those facts, create a reasonable suspicion that a person has or is about to commit a crime.” State v. Hernandez, 954 S.W.2d 639, 642 (Mo. W.D. 1997) (citing to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 32 (1968)).
Alright, so you’ve finally made the decision to start a business; now you have a host of other decisions to make before you can get off the ground. Like many other small business owners, you are probably unsure as to the best way to go about the process of formation and incorporation, drafting your articles or organization, partnership agreements, bylaws, etc. It seems like everywhere you turn there is a different opinion on the best way to go about setting up your new business. I am going to attempt to break down the pros and cons of the various corporate structures so that you have a better understanding of each, and hopefully you can use this knowledge to better serve you in structuring your business.
In the days leading up to my hearing, I had been told my my fellow attorneys that prosecutors generally dismiss red light tickets without putting up much of a fight. The reason being that the city does not want to find the violator guilty and have the ticket appealed to a higher court, because the law may run the risk of being overturned. See my previous post discussing Missouri v. Belt.
As I walked in and sat down across from the prosecutor, she asked me what the basis of my defense was. I started off by telling her that the municipal ordinance is outside of the scope of the power granted to the city by the state of Missouri, and is unconstitutional. She informed me that she was unwilling to dismiss the case, and that I needed to file my brief with the judge, and my case would be heard. Shortly thereafter I was called to the bench and the judge asked if I was the Defendant and an attorney, to which I responded in the affirmative. He then asked me to proceed with my defenses.
I received a citation in the mail on September 16, 2010, for failing to come to a complete stop on a right turn. Up until this point I was unaware that these red light cameras focused on turn lanes, I thought they only focused on those drivers that blatantly sped through red lights in the middle of the intersection. I was furious about the $100 fine, although it was obvious from the pictures that my vehicle had indeed rolled through the red light and taken a right turn.
In my anger I sat down and spent a few hours doing research, and decided to refuse to pay the fine. I threw the notices in the trash until a court date was set for 5/9/11. The thing that infuriated me about this ticket is the fact that it completely circumvents due process. The legislature has created an administrative statute to take the place of what has historically been a criminal statute, and stripped the statute of its criminal penalties in order to avoid the justice system. In my mind this is a poorly masked attempt to deprive the accused of due process in facing their accuser, and the fine can be considered to be an unconstitutional taking of property.