Docstoc

Contents DRI CLE Calendar

Document Sample
Contents DRI CLE Calendar Powered By Docstoc
					Tuesday, July 27, 2010                                The Voice - July 2, 2008   VOLUME 7 NUMBER 26



Contents
DRI CLE Calendar
And The Defense Wins
And The Defense Wins
And The Defense Wins
And The Defense Wins
And The Defense Wins
And The Defense Wins
And The Defense Wins
This Week's Feature
DRI Cares
DRI Cares
Legislative Tracking
Quote of the Week
DRI News
DRI News
DRI News
Annual Meeting
Links


July 01, 2008

DRI CLE Calendar
Does Your Firm Measure Up? (webconference)
August 5, 2008

National Workers' Compensation Review
August 18-19, 2008
Orlando World Center Marriott, Orlando, Florida

Religious Accommodation in the Public and Private Workplace(webconference)
August 21, 2008

Intellectual Property Litigation
September 4-5, 2008
The Drake Hotel, Chicago, Illinois

Nursing Home/ALF Litigation
September 4-5, 2008
JW Marriott Orlando, Grande Lakes, Orlando, Florida

Construction Law
September 11-12, 2008
Bellagio, Las Vegas, Nevada

Key Strategies in Marketing and Practice Group Management (webconference)
September 23, 2008

Leadership, Compensation and Associate Retention (webconference)
November 11, 2008

Complex Medicine
November 13-14, 2008
Hotel del Coronado, San Diego, California

For all other seminars and webconferences,click here.




                                                                 Page 1 of 9
July 01, 2008

And The Defense Wins




Kevin M. Tepas




Partner Kevin M. Tepas of Ryan, Ryan, Johnson & Deluca, LLP in Stamford, Connecticut recently obtained a defense verdict for a doctor
and his practice following a four-week jury trial in Danbury Superior Court.Attorney Tepas represented the defendant internist and his group in
a claim by a 56-year-old female patient that, during a pre-operative evaluation for total knee replacement surgery, the physician negligently
failed to recognize prior bleeding episodes as the signs of an inherited bleeding defect.

The patient claimed that because of the defendants’ negligence, she was given the anticoagulant Coumadin, which caused her to suffer an
acute bilateral adrenal hemorrhage on the sixth post-operative day. As a result of the hemorrhage, the patient permanently lost all adrenal
function.

In addition, she must take steroid medication for the rest of her life, wear a medical alert bracelet advising of her condition and must carry with
her at all times a syringe with a stress dose of steroids for emergency intramuscular injection if necessary. She also claimed that as a result of
the hemorrhage she experienced numerous physiological sequela such as browning of her skin and hair loss and that her adrenal illness
prevented her from participating in physical therapy which caused the initial surgery to fail and required her to undergo a second knee
replacement surgery.

The plaintiff asked the jury to award her more than $6,000,000 in damages. However, after a 23-day trial and one and a half days of
deliberation, the jury found all issues in favor of the defendants.


July 01, 2008

And The Defense Wins




John C. O'Loughlin




John C. O'Loughlin, a shareholder in the Grand Rapids, Michigan office ofSmith Haughey Rice & Roegge, received a no cause verdict after
a two-week trial in which he successfully represented a Grand Rapids hospital and six of its neonatologists who were named in a wrongful
death suit in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in the care and treatment of a prematurely born infant.

The infant died after developing necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a severe inflammatory disorder of the intestine. The plaintiff’s claim in this
case was that the neonatologists and nurses caring for the infant failed to recognize the signs and symptoms of NEC in time to prevent her
death from the disease.


July 01, 2008

And The Defense Wins




                                                                    Page 2 of 9
Barbara W. Sonneborn and Mark W. Klingensmith of Sonneborn Rutter Cooney & Klingensmith P.A. in West Palm Beach, Florida,
successfully represented orthopedic surgeon Merrill Reuter, M.D., and his physician’s assistant Earnest Kepler in a medical malpractice action
recently.

In June 1998, the plaintiff, Nina Chamberlain, sought treatment for a two year history of chronic back pain following an injury suffered while on
duty as a police officer. A MRI was obtained, which showed a large herniated disk. Surgery was recommended, and a second opinion was
offered. The plaintiff indicated she was traveling from Florida to an out-of-state family gathering in Illinois. A second opinion was scheduled
with a local neurosurgeon to take place after her return in four weeks. The plaintiff experienced no difficulties while traveling by car to the
gathering, but three days after arrival suffered an exacerbation of back pain. She made a call to the defendants about this incident.
Defendants said they told her to seek urgent medical attention, although she denied this. The pain subsided and she went with her family on a
trip to Wisconsin. The following day, she says the pain turned to numbness, prompting her to make another call to Dr. Reuter’s office advising
of this change. Defendants stated they told her once again to seek urgent medical attention, although she denied this and claimed she was
only told by the physician assistant to “take it easy.” She claimed that she tried to be treated at two hospitals in the area, but was told that her
problem would need to be treated at a hospital in Illinois. She also claimed she was unable to secure a timely appointment with any local
neurosurgeons or orthopedic physicians. At 3 a.m. the next morning, she experienced problems with her bowel and bladder, but waited five
hours to make another call to Florida to speak to the defendants about this new change. She was told this was an emergency situation, and
she made the two hour drive back to Illinois to a hospital where she underwent emergency surgery for cauda equina syndrome. Although she
experienced significant return of motor function over time, she was left with a lack of genital sensation, loss of bowel and bladder control, and
altered sensation to her legs.

Mrs. Chamberlain and her husband, on behalf of themselves and their children, sued Dr. Reuter, Mr. Kepler and their practice, Advanced
Orthopedics, for medical malpractice resulting in her cauda equina syndrome. Plaintiff's counsel claimed that Dr. Reuter, individually and
through his assistant, failed to properly advise the plaintiff of the significance of her herniated disc, failed to advise her that she should not
travel out-of-state, failed to arrange for surgery, failed to provide appropriate advice to her on the telephone about what she should do given
the symptoms she was experiencing, and failed to tell her that her condition was an emergency and that she should go to an emergency room.


The defense contended that there was no indication that surgery was needed immediately, no contraindication for travel given her history and
condition, and no way to predict that her condition would progress to cauda equina syndrome. Further, the defense contended that she was
appropriately informed that her change in symptoms required urgent and timely medical attention, which plaintiff failed to obtain.

Prior to trial, a court-ordered non-binding summary trial was conducted before two jury panels, which returned verdicts of $14 million and $5
million in favor of the plaintiffs, respectively.

After three weeks of trial and one hour of jury deliberation, the jury found that both Dr. Reuter and Mr. Kepler were not negligent. Judge
Thomas Barkdull later denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.


July 01, 2008

And The Defense Wins

Jeffrey S. Hebrank of Hepler, Broom, MacDonald, Hebrank, True & Noce, LLC in Edwardsville, Illinois, and Michael W. Drumke of Schiff
Hardin LLP in Chicago obtained a favorable defense verdict for their client Georgia-Pacific in an action entitledMary Jane Dancho,
                                                                                          ,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of George T. Dancho, deceased Cook County, IL Cir. Ct. No. 05 L 5620. On May 15,
2008, a Cook County, Illinois jury ruled in favor of the defense in a trial that began on May 5. Counsel from Motley Rice LLP in Mount Pleasant,
South Carolina, and Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. in Chicago represented the plaintiff.

The case had previously been tried November 26 - December 7, 2007, but resulted in a mistrial when the jury deadlocked during deliberations
and could not reach a verdict. The defendants at that time were Owens-Illinois, Inc. and Georgia-Pacific. Owens-Illinois subsequently resolved
the case.

The plaintiff was a union electrician with a long history of having worked with or around numerous types of asbestos-containing products in
various industrial and commercial settings including power plants, steels mills and oil refineries. The plaintiff alleged that George Dancho had
worked with or around other trades who had used asbestos-containing Georgia-Pacific joint compounds while doing residential construction
work during the 1960s and 1970s. George Dancho died of diffuse malignant mesothelioma, and Georgia-Pacific did not dispute the diagnosis.
At the close of the case, the plaintiff asked the jury for more than $5 million in damages.

At trial, Georgia-Pacific argued that George Dancho, who was the sole product ID witness, was mistaken in his identification of Georgia-Pacific
products and that his cancer had been caused by his exposure to numerous other products that contained amphiboles. Mr. Dancho's lungs
had been removed at autopsy and the tissue was analyzed by Dr. Bruce Case, at the request of Georgia-Pacific. The analysis revealed the
presence of highly elevated levels of crocidolite and amosite - fibers that were never in Georgia-Pacific products. The fiber burden study did
not reveal any chrysotile or tremolite fibers.

Plaintiff’s experts included Dr. Eugene Mark (pathology), Dr. Arnold Brody (pathology/biology), and Frank Parker, CIH (industrial
hygiene/state-of-the-art). The defendant’s experts were Dr. Bruce Case (pathology), Dr. Victor Roggli (pathology); Dr. James C. Rock
(industrial hygiene), and Dr. Joseph Marsh (construction sequencing and methods).



                                                                    Page 3 of 9
July 01, 2008

And The Defense Wins

John B. Curtis, Jr. and Cherie Jewell, members of Leitner Williams Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC in Chattanooga, Tennessee, recently
obtained a defense verdict in favor of an emergency room physician and a physician assistant. The plaintiff claimed that the physician
assistant failed to properly clean a contaminated wound, which resulted in an infection. The plaintiff further alleged that the discharge and
follow-up instructions were inadequate. The physician was alleged to have provided inadequate supervision.

The plaintiff went to the emergency room after falling from a roof and striking his knee, which was lacerated and contaminated with debris.
After an initial examination of the knee and obtaining x-rays, the physician assistant discussed the case with the supervising physician and
then consulted an orthopedic surgeon. The surgeon determined the wound could be adequately treated in the emergency room and gave the
physician assistant instructions for cleansing the wound, closure of the wound, and treatment with antibiotics. The physician assistant provided
wound care in accordance with the instructions and discharged the plaintiff with instructions to follow-up with his primary physician for suture
removal and to return to the emergency room if he developed any signs of infection. The plaintiff developed redness, swelling, and increased
pain the next two days, but did not return to the ER for four days. His wound was found infected, and surgical debridement found debris
located approximately 5 cm above the initial wound site.

The plaintiff sought damages for the infection, disfigurement, permanent injury to the knee, and pain and suffering. At the close of the plaintiff’s
proof, the court directed verdicts with respect to the plaintiff’s claim that the physician assistant was an agent of the physician, plaintiff’s claim
of permanent injury, and plaintiff’s claim of wound infection.

With respect to the remaining claims, the jury rendered a unanimous verdict in favor of both defendants.


July 01, 2008

And The Defense Wins
                              Joan M. Young of Heenan Blaikie LLP and Mark V.C. Virgin of Stevens Virgin both of Vancouver, British
                              Columbia, Canada, successfully represented a defendant in a five-week jury trial in which the plaintiff claimed
                              that a minor car accident caused significant lower back injuries, including parasympathetic nerve damage
                              resulting in bowel and bladder dysfunction, rendering her unable to return to her work as a licensed practical
                              nurse. The plaintiff advanced a future care plan for approximately $800,000. She sought total damages of
                              approximately $1.4 million and was eventually awarded only $34,600 by the jury.



July 02, 2008

And The Defense Wins
DRI wants to hear about your win! Send a short summary and recent photo of yourself to Barb Lowery by e-mail blowery@dri.org) or fax
                                                                                                             (
(312.252.0959).


July 02, 2008

This Week's Feature

Oregon Court of Appeals Prohibits the Reduction of Economic Damages for Medicare and Medicaid
By Robert E. Sinnott, Cooney & Crew LLP

The Oregon Court of Appeals recently held that Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements and write-offs may not be deducted from a jury’s
economic damages award. In two recent cases, the court decided two interrelated questions: 1) Do billed amounts that a medical provider
writes-off pursuant to an arrangement with an insurer remain recoverable “economic damages?” 2) If the write-offs in the first issue remain
recoverable “economic damages,” are the write-offs “collateral benefits” by which a court may reduce an economic damages award?

In White v. Jubitz, 219 Or App 62 (2008), the plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of his stool collapsing at the defendant’s bar. The plaintiff
received $38,977 in medical treatment. Because the plaintiff received Medicare, the hospital wrote-off $25,551 as a condition of its agreement
to accept Medicare payments. Medicare then paid the remaining $13,426. The plaintiff paid little, if any, of the costs towards his medical
treatment.

The plaintiff subsequently brought suit against the defendant to recover the full cost of his medical treatment. The defendant filed motions to
either present evidence of the Medicare write-offs, or alternatively, to limit the plaintiff’s recovery to the $13,426 paid by Medicare. The court
denied the defendant’s motions, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $37,600. The defendant then moved to reduce the jury
verdict by the $25,551 that the hospital wrote-off. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to reduce the jury verdict.

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. It first held that write-offs should not affect the total amount of “economic damages” as
defined by ORS 31.710. The statute provides that economic damages are “objectively verifiable monetary losses including but not limited to

                                                                     Page 4 of 9
reasonable charges necessarily incurred for medical, hospital, nursing and rehabilitative services and other health care services ….” ORS
31.710(2)(a) [emphasis added]. The defendant argued that “incurred” should be the amount that the plaintiff remains liable to pay at the time of
trial. The court interpreted “incurred” to mean the amount that the plaintiff became liable to pay at the time the plaintiff received the care
necessary to treat him. In other words, whether the plaintiff remains responsible to pay for the medical treatment at the time of his trial does
not affect whether the amount constitutes plaintiff’s “economic damages.”

The next issue the court decided involved Oregon’s collateral source statute, ORS 31.580. The statute provides that the court may deduct
collateral benefits paid by a third party to compensate the plaintiff. The statute then provides four categories of exemptions to the general rule
                                                                                                                            i
that courts may deduct collateral benefits. The third category exempts insurance benefits and the last category exempts,nter alia, federal
Social Security benefits.

The Jubitz defendant did not dispute the plaintiff’s right to recover the amount actually paid by Medicare, since it appears to fit within the third
category of exemptions pertaining to insurance benefits (the exemption depends on whether the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s family paid premiums
on the policy). However, the defendant did dispute the plaintiff’s right to recover the amount written-off by the hospital due to its arrangement
with Medicare.

The court held that Medicare write-offs are federal Social Security benefits, since Medicare began as a Title XVIII program under the Social
Security Amendments of 1965. Therefore, Medicare write-offs may not be deducted from the economic damages award.

Similarly, in Cohens v. McGee, 219 Or App 78 (2008), the Oregon Court of Appeals held that Medicaid write-offs are federal Social Security
benefits, and therefore, they may not be deducted from the plaintiff’s economic damages award. InCohens, the plaintiff’s medical provider
wrote-off medical charges pursuant to its arrangement with the Oregon Health Plan (OHP), Oregon’s Medicaid program. The State manages
OHP, which receives funding from both Oregon and the federal government. OHP’s roots stem from the federal Medicaid program,
established as Title XIX of the Social Security Amendments of 1965. Since OHP derives from Medicaid, a federal Social Security program, the
court held that economic damage awards may not be reduced by providers’ write-offs. The court explained that even though the State runs
and partially funds OHP, it “does not change the inherent character of those benefits as federal Social Security benefits.”

In sum, in Jubitz and Cohens, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that billed amounts that a medical provider subsequently writes-off constitute
recoverable “economic damages.” Oregon’s collateral benefits rule typically allows a court to deduct benefits received from a third party to
compensate for economic damages, which includes money received from an insurer and write-offs pursuant to the insurer’s arrangement with
the healthcare provider. However, since Medicare and Medicaid constitute federal Social Security benefits, they fit into a statutory exemption
to Oregon’s collateral benefits rule. Therefore, in Oregon, a court may not deduct Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements and write-offs from
the plaintiff’s economic damages award.

Robert E. Sinnott
Cooney & Crew LLP
Lake Oswego, Oregon
rsinnott@cooneyllc.com


July 02, 2008

DRI Cares




One Firm’s Dedication to Pro Bono and Community Service
By Theresa C. Lopez , Crowell & Moring LLP

Crowell & Moring is actively involved inpro bono legal work and engaged in unique community service efforts. The firm is committed to
                                                                                                                                        T
assuring that all citizens have access to the legal system and it ranks in the top 50 of the nation’s 200 highest-grossing firms based on he
American Lawyer’s “Pro Bono Report. Crowell & Moring serves a wide range of pro bono causes, but it has made a special commitment to
                                                                                                                            pro
children, the homeless, and domestic violence victims. Nearly every year, the firm contributes more than 20,000 hours to bono matters —
an investment of more than $4 million. In Washington, D.C., the firm has twice been honored asPro Bono Firm of the Year. In California,
Crowell & Moring was named the 2007 Firm of the Year by the Orange County Public Law Center (PLC).

In conjunction with the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Crowell & Moring filed a lawsuit and ultimately
negotiated a favorable settlement on behalf of the Equal Rights Center (ERC) and one individual plaintiff. The ERC’s testing at approximately
60 District Subway restaurants found almost all had barriers to access or facilities that were in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The lawsuit resulted in a comprehensive agreement to modify the restaurants, including alterations to 20 restaurants’ entrances to improve
access and almost 300 interior changes to be made in nearly every Subway restaurant in the District.



                                                                    Page 5 of 9
At the invitation of the D.C. Office of Attorney General, Crowell & Moring along with D.C. Appleseed and Kilpatrick Stockton LLP recently
conducted a two-year investigation of the District of Columbia’s child support system to examine why almost 60,000 children in the District who
are eligible for support receive no money at all. The investigation yielded a comprehensive report,Taking Care of the District’s Children: The
                                                ,
Need to Reform D.C.’s Child Support System released in August 2007. Crowell & Moring is continuing to work with D.C. Appleseed to
implement the report’s recommendations and is engaging District leaders, the courts, community-based organizations and others in this effort.

                                                                                                                         pro
In California, counsel Deborah Arbabi is currently president of the Orange County Public Law Center and regularly provides bono
assistance to the PLC’s clients. Counsel Theresa Lopez, a member of the firm’s Public Service Committee, and associate Christina Dallen are
currently helping a disabled, elderly woman collect more than $60,000 in spousal support arrearages. Ms. Lopez is also working with partner
Stephen Pallan and associate Amy Owens of the firm’s D.C. office on a clemency petition for a elderly woman who has served 20 years of a
life sentence in Louisiana for a first-time heroine possession-for-sale conviction.

Irvine partner Steve Rice, with assistance from counsel Van Nguyen, has represented a group of seniors seeking access to financial records
maintained by the management company running their Orange County retirement community. Steve Rice has been named a PLC Attorney of
the Year and was also named aPro Bono “Angel” in 2006 by California Lawyer, one of only 16 lawyers to receive that honor across the state.
                                                                                                                                 pro
Steve Rice’s pro bono work has even set legal precedent. In 2003, he won an appellate court ruling of first impression that allows bono
attorneys to collect attorneys' fees as discovery sanctions.

Crowell & Moring has also provided pro bono work for disaster victims. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, attorneys in the firm’s Irvine and
D.C. offices assisted with multiple disaster relief appeals to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Irvine associate Tom Kruza
has represented several Southern California families with FEMA claims relating to the recent wild fires.

Finally, Crowell & Moring’s Irvine office has ongoing programs to assist lower-income schools, including an innovative program called
“Algebrapalooza” at the Sierra Intermediate School in Santa Ana, which Irvine partner Scott Feldman designed. Counsel Jonathan Lindsey
and Theresa Lopez, associate Derek Hahn and Chris Friedt, a paralegal, all of the Irvine office, have assisted in the program’s administration.
Students take special algebra tests (created by the Crowell & Moring team) at regular intervals during the school year and are rewarded for
their hard work and success on the tests with cash prizes. The success of this now four-year pilot program has been featured in theLos
Angeles Times and on The Early Show on CBS.

Counsel Theresa Lopez
Crowell & Moring LLP
Irvine, California
tlopez@crowell.com


July 02, 2008

DRI Cares
Sending Your Submission
                                                                 pro bono work? If so, DRI would like to hear about it. Please send a short
Are you or your law firm actively involved in community service or
article (750 words max) describing your involvement to Barb Lowery blowery@dri.org). Representative submissions will be selected for
                                                                     (
inclusion in The Voice.


July 02, 2008

Legislative Tracking
Legislative Update — EMPLOYMENT LAW
California
CA HB 2716: Paid sick days.
• An Act to amend Sections 226, 233, and 234 of, and to add Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 245) to Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 of,
the Labor Code, relating to employment. This bill would provide that an employee who works in California for seven or more days in a calendar
year is entitled to paid sick days, as defined, which shall be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked; an employee
would be entitled to use accrued sick days beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment; the bill would require employers to provide paid
sick days, upon the request of the employee, for diagnosis, care, or treatment of health conditions of the employee or an employee's family
member, or for leave related to domestic violence or inappropriate physical assault; an employer would be prohibited from discriminating or
retaliating against an employee who requests paid sick days; the bill would require employers to satisfy specified posting and notice, and
recordkeeping requirements; and for related purposes.
• 06/25/2008 – From Committee: do pass; re-referred to Committee on Appropriations.

INSURANCE LAW
California
CA HB 3055: Guarantee Association.
• An Act to amend Sections 1063.1, 1063.2, and 1063.75 of the Insurance Code. This bill would delete from a list of categories of claims
excluded from the California Insurance Guarantee Association’s definition of "covered claims" those claims made after the insurance policy
has been canceled by the association, as specified. This bill would authorize the association to recover overpayments by an action or other
proceeding. This bill would extend the date for bonds to be issued to provide funds for covered claim obligations for workers' compensation
claims, as specified, to January 1, 2011.
• 06/27/2008 – Enrolled.

MEDICAL LIABILITY AND HEALTH CARE LAW
Federal
FD HB 6331: Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008.

                                                                  Page 6 of 9
• An Act to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to extend expiring provisions under the Medicare Program, to improve
beneficiary access to preventive and mental health services, to enhance low-income benefit programs, and to maintain access to care in rural
areas, including pharmacy access, and for other purposes.
• 06/26/2008 – Cloture motion not invoked by Senate; returned to the Calendar.

MISCELLANEOUS
Missouri
MO SB 1016: Victims' compensation fund.
• This Act dissolves the Legal Services for Low-Income Person Fund and provides that the portion of money that was being transferred into
such fund from the Tort Victims' Compensation Fund, in addition to any money remaining in the Legal Services for Low-Income Person Fund,
shall now be transferred to the Basic Civil Legal Services Fund. Such funds shall continue to be distributed to qualifying state legal service
organizations that provide legal services to eligible low-income persons.
• 06/25/2008 – Signed by Governor.

                                                                                                                   s
DRI gratefully acknowledges the Young Lawyers Committee Legislative Subcommittee for its contributions to The Voice’ weekly legislative
updates.


July 02, 2008

Quote of the Week
The freedom to share one’s insights and judgments verbally or in writing is, just like the freedom to think, a holy and inalienable right of
humanity that, as a universal human right, is above all the rights of princes.
—Carl Friedrich Bahrdt


July 02, 2008

DRI News




Diversity Statement Revised this Spring by the DRI Board of Directors

DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN DRI: A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE
DRI is the largest international membership organization of attorneys defending the interests of business and individuals in civil litigation.
Diversity is a core value at DRI. Indeed, diversity is fundamental to the success of the organization, and we seek out and embrace the
innumerable benefits and contributions that the perspectives, backgrounds, cultures, and life experiences a diverse membership provides.
Inclusiveness is the chief means to increase the diversity of DRI’s membership and leadership positions. DRI’s members and potential leaders
are often also members and leaders of other defense organizations. Accordingly, DRI encourages all national, state, and local defense
organizations to promote diversity and inclusion in their membership and leadership.


July 02, 2008

DRI News




Deadline is August 1 — DRI Awards
DRI’s Annual Professional Achievement and Service Awards celebrate and honor outstanding performance by SLDOs, DRI law firms and
individual members. Brochures detailing the awards and nomination criteria have been mailed, and you may alsoview the brochure online.
We encourage you to recognize the accomplishments of your peers and submit entries for each of the awards. The call for nominations
deadline is August 1, 2008. The awards will be presented at the Awards Luncheon , Thursday, October 23, with Eleanor Clift, regular
panelist on The McLaughlin Group andNewsweek columnist, as guest speaker. To register for the luncheon and other events at the
Annual Meeting, click here.


July 02, 2008

DRI News


                                                                    Page 7 of 9
National Workers’ Compensation Review
August 18-19, 2008
Orlando World Center Marriott
Orlando, Florida
For its inaugural participation in the Florida Workers’ Compensation Institute Inc.’s (FWCI) 63rd annual conference,DRI will present its
own two-day stand-alone program within the larger conference. DRI’s presentations on Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning will feature
an array of legal and medical workers’ compensation topics with nationwide implications and applications. Our preeminent attorneys, industry
spokespersons and physicians will discuss developments and trends in multiple areas of concern—stressing essential take-away concepts
that attendees can apply effectively back at the office. The intermediate level program is especially geared for attorneys, adjusters and risk
management/ employer representatives. DRI registrants may attend all FWCI sessions, including the opening session on Monday morning
featuring ex-NFL quarterback Terry Bradshaw, as well as receive one ticket to the Monday night reception with entertainment provided by the
1980s sensation, The Bangles. To register now, click here or call 312.795.1101 for more information!


July 02, 2008

Annual Meeting




2008 Annual Meeting
October 22-26, 2008
New Orleans, Louisiana

Find CLE Topics and Networking that You Need Now — All in One Meeting

October 22: New Corporate Counsel Program!
Delivering Efficiency — How to Maximize Your In-House Legal Department Talent and Resources
Participation is limited to in-house attorneys* only to ensure an environment for candid discussion.

October 23: Politics and Health Insurance — As a Presidential Election Looms, What Is on the Horizon?

October 24: When the Financial Levee Breaks—The Impact of the Subprime Mortgage Meltdown

October 25: 5K “Fun-raiser” Run/Walk
Whether you run or walk this is a great opportunity to have some fun and support New Orleans schools.

* In-house counsel is defined as a licensed attorney who is employed exclusively for a corporation or other private sector organization for the
purpose of providing legal representation and counsel only to that corporation, its affiliates and subsidiaries.

For more information, click here or call Customer Service at 312.795.1101.>


May 20, 2003

Links
About DRI

Annual Meeting/P>

Membership

Membership Directory

News and Events

CLE Seminars and Events

Publications


                                                                   Page 8 of 9
The Alliance

DRI Europe

Archive




Published by DRI




                   Page 9 of 9

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:14
posted:9/27/2012
language:English
pages:9