CATA. In this issue: Cleveland Academy of Trial Attorneys

Transcription

1 CT Winter Clevelnd cdemy Tril ttorneys In th sue: The Right To Setfs fter boliti Of Joint nd Severl Libility pg 4 Voir Dire: Chllenges For Cuse pg 10 dicl uthorizt nd Your Client s Right To Privcy pg 14 The Use nd Propriety Of dicre Set sides In Libility Settlements pg 20

2 STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS... FINNCIL PLN SPECIL NEEDS TRUSTS... SETTLEMENT PRESERVTIO STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS... FINNCIL PLNNING... MEDICRE SET-SIDE TRUSTS... SETTLEMENT C SPECIL NEEDS TRUSTS... SETTLEMENT PRESERVTI TRUSTS... QULIFIED SETTLEMENT FUNDS MEDICRE SET-SIDE TRUSTS... SETTLEMENT CSULTING... QULIFIED SETTLEMENT FUNDS 18 Yers Experience in Structu Insurnce nd Finncil Service 18 Yers Experience in Structured Settlements, Insurnce nd Finncil Services #1 Structured Settlement Produc Lst 7 Csecutive Yers #1 Structured Settlement Producer Ntilly STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS... FINNCIL PLNNING... Lst 7 Csecutive Yers Ntilly Prominent nd Led in Field SPECIL NEEDS TRUSTS... SETTLEMENT PRESERVTI TRUSTS... Ntilly Prominent nd Leding uthority MEDICRE STRUCTURED QULIFIED SET-SIDE SETTLEMENTS TRUSTS FUNDS in.. Field... SETTLEMENT FINNCIL PLNNING CSULTING Highly... Cretive,... Respsive nd Industry Leder SPECIL NEEDS TRUSTS QULIFIED... SETTLEMENT PRESERVTI FUNDS TRUSTS... MICHEL Highly Cretive, W. GOODMN Respsive Esq. nd Pressil MEDICRE SET-SIDE TRUSTS Industry CErtIfIED... Leder structured SETTLEMENT CSULTING... settlement CsuLtNt MICHEL W. GOODMN 18 Yers Esq. Experience in Structured Settlements, CErtIfIED structured Insurnce QULIFIED nd Finncil SETTLEMENT Services FUNDS STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS... FINNCIL PLNNING... SPECIL NEEDS TRUSTS... SETTLEMENT PRESERVTI TRUSTS... MEDICRE SET-SIDE TRUSTS... SETTLEMENT CSULTING... MICHEL W. GOODMN Esq. CErtIfIED structured settlement CsuLtNt settlement CsuLtNt #1 Structured Settlement Producer Ntilly Lst 7 Csecutive Yers 18 Yers Experience in Structured Settlements, Insurnce nd Finncil Services Ntilly Prominent nd Leding uthority in Field #1 Yers Yers Structured Experience Experience Settlement in in Producer Structured Structured Ntilly Settlements, Settlements, Insurnce Insurnce Lst 7 nd nd Csecutive Finncil Finncil Yers Services Services #1 #1 Ntilly Structured Structured Prominent Settlement Settlement nd Producer Producer Leding Ntilly Ntilly uthority in Lst Lst Field 7 Csecutive Csecutive Yers Yers Ntilly Ntilly Prominent Prominent nd nd Leding Leding uthority uthority Highly Cretive, Respsive nd Pressil in in Field Field Industry Leder Highly Cretive, Respsive nd Pressil Industry Leder Boc Rt Chrlest Clevelnd Detroit Hrrburg Knss City Los Boc Rt Chrlest Clevelnd Detroit Hrrburg Knss City Los ngeles Pittsburgh

3 ctents 2 President s ssge by Brin Een 3 ssge from Editors by Kthleen J. St. John nd Dn Tylor-Kol The Right To Setfs fter boliti Of Joint nd Severl Libility 4 by Toby Hirshmn 10 Voir Dire: Chllenges For Cuse by Dn Tylor-Kol 12 Sidebr: Chllenges Cuse by Ellen H. Hirshmn 13 Sidebr Two: Chllenges Cuse by Ellen H. Hirshmn Youth Chllenge Beyd The Prctice: CT mrs In The Community dicl uthorizt nd Your Client s Right To Privcy by Kthleen J. St. John The Use nd Propriety Of dicre Set sides In Libility Settlements by John Cttie 22 Sidebr: Cooperting With The U.S. ttorney s Office to Resolve Your dicre Lien by Smuel V. Butcher Verdict Spotlight by Chrtopher llino 30 CT Verdicts & Settlements In The Fight For Our Lives: Novemr 2, 2010 Electi Post Mortem by John R. Lir II Pointers From The Bench: Interviews With Judge Dick mbrose nd Judge John J. Russo by Chrtopher llino dverters in th sue dvocte Films...2 Cefrtti Group...37 Copy King, Inc...23 Egle Communict...23 Findlw...Inside Frt Legl Imges...31 dml Csulting...Bck Cover Ntil Settlement Csultnts...Inside Frt Prile Imging...9 Recovery Opt Mngement, Inc...9 Thinsolut...37 Video Dcovery, Inc...7 Wre Reporting Service...32 Cover Photo by Jn Eustche Brin N. Een President John Lir II Vice President Smuel V. Butcher Secretry George E. Loucs Tresurer s Cthleen Bolek Stephen S. Crndll Rhd Bker Devec Pul W. Flowers Grnt. Goodmn Dvid R. Grnt Pul Grieco Ellen Hobbs Hirshmn Jy Kelley Dvid. Kulwicki Jck Lndskrer Chrtopher M. llino Jthn D. ster Chrtin R. Ptno Susn E. Petersen Dniel Romine Sturt E. Scott ndrew J. Thomps ndrew R. Young Editors Kthleen J. St. John Dn Tylor-Kol Editoril Committee Smuel V. Butcher Brin N. Een Dvid P. Grnt Ellen H. Hirshmn Jy Kelley John R. Lir II George E. Loucs Chrtopher M. llino ndrew J. Thomps Opin expressed in rticles herein re those uthors nd re necessrily shred by CT. CT NEWS Winter

4 Pst Presidents: W. Crig Bshein Stephen T. Keefe, Jr. Mrk E. Brbour Dn Tylor-Kol Romney B. Cullers Denn R. Lndsdowne Michel F. Becker Kenneth J. Kn Dvid M. Pr Frnk G. Bolmeyer Rort F. Lint, Jr. Jen M. McQuilln Richrd C. lkire Willim Hwl Dvid W. Goldense Rort E. Mtyjsik Lurie F. Strr Willim M. Greene Jmes. Lowe Pul M. Kufmn John V. Schr, Jr. Scott E. Stewrt Joseph L. Coticchi Sheld L. Brvermn Willim J. Novk Peter H. Weinrger lfred J. Tolro Fred Wendel III John V. Dnelly Michel R. Ku Frnk K. Isc Seymour Gross Lwrence E. Stewrt Milt Dunn F. M. pi Fred Wemn Frnklin. Polk lrt J. Morhrd George Lowy Eugene P. Krent Wlter L. Greene T.D. McDld Rlph. Miller Nthn D. Rollins Hrold Siemn Michel T. Gvin Richrd M. Cerrezin Joseph O. Coy Rort R. Solt Jmes J. Cwy Brin Een principl t Greene & Een Co., LP. He cn reched t or en@mlprcticeohio.com. President s ssge My ssocite recently ws involved in cr ccident nd, within few dys, solicitti letters from lwyers gn rriving in mil. He brought letters to fice to show me. fter looking through m to see wher y complied with ethics requirements, I dved my ssocite tht I ws deeply dppointed. h, he sid. I knew it. They re unethicl ren t y? bsolutely, I replied, two m hven t pid ir CT dues! Their loss, s re hs never en tter time to join our orgnizti. For strters, CT Newsletter now bck fter e-yer hitus nd I hope will gree it tter thn ever. We hve re-mtted, re-multed, nd rejuvented our publicti under ledership Editors Kthleen St. John nd Dn Tylor-Kol, nd with sstnce from committee memrs Ellen Hirshmn (dvertements), Chr llino (verdicts nd settlements), Jy Kelley, Sm Butcher, ndrew Thomps, Dvid Grnt, John Lir, nd George Loucs. We hope enjoy th sue, nd if see e our dverters, plese sure to menti tht sw ir dvertement in CT Newsletter! (I m imgining something like th, Hey, sw d in CT Newsletter. Thnks supporting us. My next yer ll buy two? ) Our CLE lunches will under directi CT Secretry Sm Butcher th yer. These lunches remin gret wy to grb quick bite, get n hour s worth CLE, nd ctch up over lunch with collegues, judges, nd stff ttorneys. Vice-President John Lir will putting toger our CT Litigti Institute th yer. Lst yer s Institute with cross-exminti guru Lrry Pozner ws big hit, nd I expect th yer s event to even tter. s I finh writing th ssge, I m in midst prepring complex medicl mlprctice tril. In n eft to find inspirti crfting simple tril me, I turned to Rort Fulghum s ll I Relly Need to Know I Lerned in Kindergrten. I didn t find my me th time, I did find th nugget, which seems to encpsulte me wht our collecti tril ttorneys ll bout: When go out into world, wtch out trffic, hold hnds, nd stick toger. s stick toger nd hve gret yer. dvocte Films hs en producing finest Dy-In-The-Life, Trie, Settlement, nd Still Photogrphy Presentt We understnd chllenges fcing tril ttorneys nd sensitive needs ir clients. Cll us free csultti. Mrk L. Hfmn, President, J.D., Ph.D. mr: CT, OTL, TL dvocte Films inc. Ohio Svings Building Frnsleigh Rd. Shker Heights, OH CT NEWS Winter

5 ssge from Editors Kthleen J. St. John Editor t first meeting our CT News committee, Brin Een posed questi tht hs inspired us throughout th endevor. Wht CT bout? Is it just locl brnch OJ, or it something else? We cfess to ing ficidos Greter Clevelnd re. We live here; we prctice here; nd we lieve our community holds tresure trove tlent, lest which cn found within our memrship. So we would like to tke th opportunity to invite our memrs to showcse tht tlent within CT News. s we hve ttempted to do in th sue, CT News will focus rticles dcussing current legl nd prcticl sues ffecting prctices in lieu Cse Summries tht were focus pst sues. We hve lso strted new feture Beyd Prctice to highlight good works CT memrs do in community, nd we will ctinue to interview locl judges to lern bout m nd ir unique perspectives from nch. To encourge memrs to mke greter use CT website, CT News will no lger publhing Lting Experts in CT Depositi Bnk feture pst sues. The depositi bnk, however, ctinues to vilble to CT memrs t www. clevelndtrilttorneys.org. We lso encourge to ctinue to updte our collective resources by shring expert deposit, expert reports, nd eworthy briefs CT website. Plese send se mterils by mil or emil to Rose Grf t rgrf@nphm.com or t following ddress: Ms. Rose Grf Nurenrg, Pr, Heller & McCrthy Co., LP 1370 Ontrio Street, Suite 100 Clevelnd, Ohio Mterils my sent in e-trns mt,.pdf mt, or dk or hrd copy. s Verdicts & Settlements column, it ctinues to fetured t end th newsletter, lg with blnk m reporting future verdicts nd settlements. Chr llino point pers collecting Verdicts & Settlements ms, so plese send completed ms to him t cmm@mellinolw. com. Finlly, we welcome ides, suggest, nd criticms so tht we cn ctinue to mke th publicti respsive to our memrs needs. Plese feel free to ctct us t kstjohn@nphm. com or dn@nderslwfice.net. We hope will find th publicti useful, nd, s Brin sid, we encourge to support our wderful dverters. Hve sfe holidy, nd cn look wrd to next editi CT News in My Your Editors, Kthleen J. St. John nd Dn Tylor-Kol Dn Tylor-Kol Editor CT NEWS Winter

6 Toby Hirshmn principl t Lint & Hirshmn LLC. He cn reched t or TJH@LintHirshmn.com. The Right To Setfs fter boliti Of Joint nd Severl Libility by Toby Hirshmn In 2002, Sente Bill 120 ws pssed. Effective 4/9/03, joint nd severl libility ws bolhed in tort ct in most circumstnces in stte Ohio. It ws replced by pportied nd severl libility. There hs en much dcussi mg lwyers in stte s to effect th chnge s it reltes to lw setfs. Some hve suggested tht, under new sttutory scheme, when plintiff settles with e defendnt e tril nd n obtins verdict t tril ginst nor defendnt, pportied verdict will subject to setf. In fct, s review pertinent sttutes nd cse lw will mke cler, setf nd ctrii mg joint tortfesors re ccepts which re incomptible with pportied nd severl libility. Htory Setfs nd Ctrii mg Joint Tortfesors htory lw setf nd ctrii mg joint tortfesors will prove helpful in explining why se ccepts hve no pplicbility in envirment pportied nd severl libility. To gin with, it worthwhile ing tht setf nd ctrii mg joint tortfesors re opposite sides sme coin. Ctrii mount tht defendnt cn get from co-defendnt s credit ginst mounts pid bsed reltive fult. Setf, or hnd, mount tht defendnt cn get from plintiff s credit ginst mounts to pid bsed reltive fult. Neir doctrine ws prt comm lw. Rr, ech creture sttute which ws dded s principles blme llocti evolved. In erly 19th Century, lw ctriory negligence ws dopted by mericn Courts. It ws first recognized in Msschusetts. 1 Over next century, doctrine ws dopted by most mericn jurdict. 2 The doctrine ws sometimes explined s ring s punitive device to deny plintiff recovery h wrgful cts. 3 It ws sometimes explined bsed doctrine clen hnds. However, ctriory negligence nd ll or hing rule ws lso bsed principle tht fult single, indivible injury could pportied. 4 The doctrine joint nd severl libility developed ccurrently with doctrine ctriory negligence. 5 Like doctrine ctriory negligence, doctrine joint nd severl libility ws bsed ssumpti tht injuries were indivible nd fult could pportied. 6 dopti Comprtive Negligence nd Recogniti Setf nd Ctrii mg Joint Tortfesors In respse to hrshness ll or hing pproch ctriory negligence comprtive negligence ws dopted by vst mjority jurdict. 7 In lte 1960 s ly 7 sttes hd dopted comprtive negligence. Now, virtully ll hve de so except lbm, Mrylnd, North Crolin nd Virgini. 8 In or 46 sttes, yers juries hve en routinely sked to pporti libility tween plintiff nd defendnt nd hve shown n bility to do so. lthough, t comm lw, re ws no ctrii mg joint tortfesors or setf it ws lieved tht injuries were indivible nd fult could pportied, by 1960 s 4 CT NEWS Winter

7 mjority jurdict hd pssed sttutes permitting ctri mg joint tortfesors. 9 The move towrds comprtive negligence ccelerted move towrd ctrii, nd comprtive negligence sttutes in mny sttes provided setf nd ctrii. 10 Once pportiment dmges ws permitted tween plintiffs nd defendnts, re ws no compelling res to deny pportiment mg defendnts through ctrii. 11 pportiment Dmges mg Joint Tortfesors With comprtive negligence nd ctrii, jury ws sked to pporti dmges. But joint nd severl libility still pplied. If defendnt ws insolvent, plintiff could collect entire judgment from ny lible defendnt with deep pockets regrdless h pportied libility. However, cses like Wlt Dney World Co. v. Wood 12 nd perceived insurnce cr impelled movement to severl/ pportied libility. In Wood, Mrs. Wood ws injured miniture cr ride t Dney World. Her fincé hd rmmed her from hind. The jury found plintiff to 14% negligent, fincé to 85% negligent, nd Dney to 1% negligent. pplying doctrines joint nd severl libility nd comprtive negligence, court entered judgment ginst Dney World 85% plintiff s dmges. Presumbly due to fincé s lck ssets, re ws no recourse ginst fincé. Dney, with 1% libility, ws left holding bg. Becuse cses like th nd perceived insurnce cr, in decde from mid-1980 s to mid-1990 s, 35 sttes encted some type rem which modified, restricted or bolhed joint nd severl libility. 13 Some sttes bolhed joint nd severl libility entirely. Some sttes bolhed joint nd severl libility except certin types torts. nd some sttes, like Ohio, bolhed joint nd severl libility certin types dmges, such s necomic dmges. 14 Wht hs come cler tht when joint nd severl libility bolhed nd libility pportied s severl libility, re no lger need remedy ctrii or remedy setf to prevent overpyment by e defendnt. Since ech defendnt ly lible h seprtely pportied dmges, re no bs setf. Experience Or Jurdict In ctrst to those sttes which bolhed joint nd severl libility in 1980 s nd 1990 s, Ohio did do so until There, ccordingly, lmost 20 yers experience in or sttes deling with questi wht pportied libility does to right setf. There rich body cse lw from or jurdict which estblhes with virtul unnimity tht setf comptible with pportied severl libility. Florid e those sttes. Florid bolhed joint nd severl libility n-ecomic dmges in 1988 when it encted Florid Sttute (3). Tht secti reds, in pertinent prt, s follows: pportiment Dmges *** [T]he court shll enter judgment ginst ech prty lible bs such prty s percentge fult nd bs doctrine joint nd severl libility; provided tht with respect to ny prty whose percentge fult equls or exceeds tht prticulr climnt, court shll enter judgment with respect to ecomic dmges ginst prty bs doctrine joint nd severl libility. In essence, joint nd severl libility ws bolhed in Florid n-ecomic dmges. In Wells v. Tllhssee moril Regil dicl Center, Inc., 15 Florid Supreme Court ws provided with n opportunity to cstrue Florid Sttute (3). In tht cse, plintiff filed medicl mlprctice wrgful deth cti ginst TMRMC, Dr. lfred, nd nessi ssocites. Prior to tril, plintiff settled with Dr. lfred $250,000 nd with nessi ssocites $50,000. TMRMC ws sole defendnt t tril. The jury ws instructed to pporti libility ginst ll prties, wher present or. The jury returned verdict plintiff, finding TMRMC 90% t fult, Dr. lfred 5% t fult, nd nessi ssocites 5% t fult. Totl dmges were ssessed t $573,854. TMRMC moved tht judgment reduced by $300,000 s setf mounts pid by settling defendnts. The court denied defendnt s moti. On ppel, Florid Supreme Court held tht where libility severl, rr thn joint nd severl, re no right to setf mies lredy pid by settling defendnts. It in ccurring opini tht court s rtile most succinctly stted: With enctment (3), need, nd role, [] ctrii scheme... hs en substntilly reduced. Under (3), judgment entered ginst prticulr tortfesor/ defendnt ly bs such prty s percentge fult nd bs doctrine joint nd severl libility. Since tortfesor/defendnt now fces judgment bsed ly its percentge fult, it... hs no bs seeking ctrii from nor tortfesor who might hve lso ctried to cuse climnt s injury. Such tortfesor/ CT NEWS Winter

8 defendnt no lger in need or entitled to ctrii, eir by clim ginst or tortfesors, or by reducti in judgment rendered ginst him in mount ny settlements mde by climnt with or tortfesors. Since problem tortfesor pying more thn h fir shre hs en eliminted by enctment (3), soluti to problem by scheme ctrii nd setf no lger needed. 16 Thus, where ech tortfesor, by virtue pportiment, ly lible h pportied shre hrm, re no bs invoking doctrine ctrii or doctrine setf no defendnt hs en sked to py more thn h shre hrm cused. The result reched in Wells hs en reched in virtully every jurdicti tht hs csidered effect severl libility right to setf. See Hoch v. llied-signl, Inc., 24 Cl. pp. 4th 48, 29 Cl. Rptr. 2d 615 (1994) (No setf in utomobile products cse where plintiff settled with Ford nd obtined n pportied verdict ginst setlt mnufcturer); Gemstr Ltd. v. Ernst nd Young, 185 riz. 493, 917 P.2d 222 (1996) (Held tht re severl libility by sttute, re will no setf mounts pid by nor present t tril); Neil v. Kven, 176 riz. 93, 859 P.2d 203 (riz. pp. 1993) (riz lw providing pportied libility does llow setf ); Wils v. Glt, 100 N.M. 227, 668 P.2d 1104 (1983) (Setf llowed when pportiment hs occurred); Thoms v. Solrg, 442 N.W.2d 73 (Iow 1989) (No setf llowed where sttutory lnguge requires jury to pporti fult); McDermott, Inc. v. mclyde nd River D Cstings, Ltd., 511 U.S. 202, 114 S. Ct (1994) (Held in dmirlty tht libility n-settling defendnt clculted with reference to jury s llocti proportite respsibility nd tht no setf pplied); Chrles v. Gint Egle Mrkets, 513 P. 474, 522.2d 1 (1987) (No setf when re hs en n pportiment by jury); Kussmn v. City nd County Denver, 706 P.2d 776 (Colo. 1984) (No setf llowed where re hs en n pportiment); Duncn v. Cessn ircrft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1984) (Held tht n-settling defendnt s libility nd plintiff s recovery shll reduced by percent shre custi ssigned to settling tortfesor by trier fct even if result recovery plintiff in excess verdict); Krieser v. Hobbs, 166 F.3d 736 (5th Cir. 1999) (Interpreting Mssippi lw, held tht n-settling prty hs no right to setf from verdict where fult hs en pportied); Nilss v. Biermn, 150 N.H. 393, 839.2d 25 (2003) (Held tht pro tnto setf does pply where pportiment dmges hs occurred); Brr v. Cox Communicti, Inc., 629 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind. pp. 1994) (Persl injury defendnt entitled to setf bsed mount by which nor prty hd settled with plintiff; settler hd en nmed s n-prty purpose fult llocti, nd llowing setf would hve produced double credit n-settling defendnt); Glenn v. Fleming, 240 Kn. 724, 732 P.2d 750 (1987) (Tril court s reducti plintiff s judgment ginst nsettling defendnt by mount plintiff received s result settlement with or defendnts prior to tril held to improper where n-settling defendnt hd opportunity to hve fult settling prties computed by jury filed to do so); York v. InTrust Bnk N.., 265 Kn. 271, 962 P.2d 405 (1998) (Reffirming setf where joint nd severl libility remins); D.D. Willims & Co., Inc. v. llied Chemicl Corp., 569 S.W.2d 672 (KY 1978) (Held, where buyer llegedly defective mmi entered into settlement greement with seller pursunt to which buyer received $16,500 in prtil stfcti nd buyer proceeded to tril ginst mnufcturer mmi, nd jury found tht buyer s totl dmges were $20,000 nd tht seller nd mnufcturer were ech respsible 50% dmges, buyer ws entitled to recover $10,000 from mnufcturer nd mnufcturer ws entitled to deduct $16,500 received from seller from totl dmges $20,000); Rogers v. Spdy, 147 N.J. Super. 274, 371.2d 285 (1977) (Held, where settling defendnt pys $5,000 nd cse proceeds ginst n-settling defendnt nd jury finds n-settling defendnt to 100% respsible, nsettling defendnt entitled to setf ); Vrner v. Perrymn, 969 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn. pp. 1997) (Unim ctrii mg tortfesors ct did entitle defendnt truck owner to reduce judgment ginst it its comprtive shre fult by mounts lredy pid to plintiffs by defendnt who hd settled previously); Johns v. Generl Motors Corp., 190 W. V. 236, 438 S.E.2d 28 (1993) (When plintiff seeks to recover dmges ory crsh worthiness ginst motor vehicle mnufcturer, nd mnufcturer requests tht jury pporti dmges, nd jury does so, prior settlements tween plintiff nd or defendnt will set f from jury verdict); Hderlie v. Sdgeroth, 866 P.2d 703, 708 (Wyo. 1993) (... fter joint nd severl libility ws bolhed, no tortfesor would ever py more thn h proportite shre judgment. Thus, re would never need ctrii or credit up judgment. Credit would given cuse mount judgment which ech defendnt lible lwys limited by percentge fult ssigned to tht defendnt. Theree, s mtter lw, [defendnt] cn hve no 6 CT NEWS Winter

9 credit up judgment sums pid by ors cuse [defendnt], if nd when he pys 100% th judgment, will py more thn percentge mount fult ttried to him by jury in its verdict... ); Petrolne Inc. v. Robles, 154 P.3d 1014 (lsk 2007) (Under comprtive fult sttutory frmework where ech defendnt lible ly tht hrm cused by him, re no res to llow n-settling defendnt setf ). Indeed, re re ly 2 sttes tht cn even rgubly sid to hve llowed setfs under circumstnces where libility pportied. One those sttes Idho. In Curt v. Cny Highwy Dtrict No. 4, 17 setf settling defendnt s pyment ws llowed under circumstnces where joint nd severl libility hd en sttutorily bolhed. However, Curt court ws cfrted with specific sttute mndting setf, s well s rule limiting implied repel unless two sttutes re mnifestly incstent with nd repugnnt to ech or. 18 By n mendment to sttute which predted Curt did pply to it, Idho leglture corrected th error, cknowledging incomptibility setf with severl libility regimes. s Idho Supreme Court subsequently cknowledged in Tuttle v. Wyment Frms, Inc., 19 in bolhing setf where severl libility pplied, Idho leglture cknowledged incomptibility: Joint nd severl libility ws eliminted from most ct ring fter In multiple defendnt cses prior to 1987, single defendnt ws free to settle nd, under [providing setfs when e prty settles], mount pid in settlement would credited to ll or n-settling defendnts. When joint nd severl libility ws eliminted, ws chnged, nd th hs creted n irregulrity in lw nd mde settlements more difficult. Under present system, in multiple defendnt cses, ech defendnt ly pys its pro rt shre totl dmges nd, ree, entitled to ny credit pro rt shre pid by nor defendnt in settlement. The proposed mendments to eliminte th problem nd mke secti cstent with prior eliminti joint nd severl libility. 20 In Tuttle, Idho Supreme Court held tht jury s dmge wrd reduced by mount prior settlement. Thus, lthough Idho my hve originlly filed to pprecite incomptibility setf with pportied nd severl libility, stte hs subsequently corrected th error. Litigti Support Tem VIDEO DISCOVERY, INC. Video Deposit Tril Support Digitl Photogrphy Dy-In--Life Docs. Settlement Videos High-Res Plybcks Exhibit Bords Text-to-Video Sync Interctive Timelines 2D & 3D nimti dicl Illustrti Focus Group Presentti CEDR ROD, CLEVELND, OH p f CT NEWS Winter

10 The ly or jurdicti which might rgubly sid to llow setf where re pportied nd severl libility Mine. In Hewitt v. Bhmueller, 21 plintiff ws injured in propne explosi in cmper rel property. She brought n cti ginst numr different defendnts who were eir using stove t time explosi, owned property where explosi occurred, or mnufctured stove. Prior to tril, settlement ws reched with owner property nd mnufcturer stove $193,000 nd $97,000 respectively. Tril proceeded ginst n-settling defendnt. verdict ws rendered in fvor plintiff in mount $180,000. The court proceeded, pursunt to Mine s setf sttute, 14 M.R.S.. 163, to reduce verdict to -0- bsed settlements reched e tril. However, unlike Ohio nd multitude or sttes whose cse lw set th bove, Mine hs replced joint nd severl libility with pportied nd severl libility. Rr, with 14 M.R.S.. 156, stte hs retined system joint nd severl libility. Tht secti, quoted in Hewitt, provides s follows: In cse involving multi-prty defendnts, ech defendnt shll jointly nd severlly lible to plintiff full mount plintiff s dmges Thus, lthough it true tht Mine llows n-settling defendnt to set f verdict ginst him with pyments from settling defendnt, it does do so in ctext pportied nd severl libility. Wht bove nlys shows tht every stte which hs csidered questi setfs in presence pportied nd severl libility hs reched sme cclusi: tht setf nd pportied nd severl libility re mutully exclusive. The Ohio Sttutory Scheme With pssge Sente Bill 120 in 2002, Ohio Generl ssembly set up new sttutory scheme in which joint nd severl libility ws bolhed in most circumstnces. Ohio Rev. Code , s encted, provides tht, s it reltes to n-ecomic dmges, proportite (severl) libility pplies in ll tort cses. 23 s it reltes to ecomic dmges, sttute provides tht, s to ny defendnt found to 50% or less t fult, proportite (severl) libility pplies. 24 However, s to ny defendnt found to more thn 50% t fult, joint nd severl libility remins lw ecomic dmges. 25 Ohio Rev. Code provides setfs. It sttes, in pertinent prt: When relese... given in good fith... sme injury or loss... relese... reduces clim... to extent greter ny mount stipulted by relese... or mount csiderti pid... Th secti, however, must red in cjuncti with Ohio Rev. Code which sttes, in pertinent prt, s follows: No provi to [deling with ctrii nd setf ] pplies to tort clim to extent tht to mke prty... lible to plintiff ly proportite shre tht prty... (Emphs dded). In or words, Ohio Rev. Code mkes it cler tht when severl libility pplies, re will no ctrii or setf. Th, course, mkes perfect sense in light obvious incomptibility tween ccepts setf nd pportied nd severl libility. s Supreme Court United Sttes chrcterizes it, to llow n pportiment libility nd to n llow setf, cstitutes double credit to n-settling defendnt. 26 Cclusi In bove nlys, n ttempt hs en mde to estblh tht lthough Ohio courts hve yet hd n opportunity to rule sue, public policy, uthority from or sttes nd Ohio sttutory scheme ll point in sme directi. Where joint nd severl libility hs en replced by pportied nd severl libility, re no plce setfs. Indeed, setf nd ctrii mgst joint tortfesors were remedies creted by sttute to del with inequities ssocited with joint nd severl libility where e defendnt might left holding bg nor defendnt s fult. If Ohio Supreme Court pproches questi in n even-hnded fshi with n eye towrds fcilitting development predictble nd sound jurprudence, y will, when cfrted with sue, find setf nd pportied libility nd severl libility to mutully exclusive ccepts. 8 CT NEWS Winter

11 End Notes 1. Smith v. Smith, 19 Mss. (2 Dick) 621, 624 (1824). 2. O Cner K.M., Sreenn, G.P., pportiment Dmges: Evoluti Fult Bsed System Libility Negligence, 61 J. ir. L. & Com. 365 ( ). [Hereinfter referred to s O Cner]. 3. W. Pge Keet et l., PROSSER & KEET THE LW OF TORTS 65 (5th Ed. 1984). 4. O Cner t O Cner t Id. t Id. t Id. t Id. t Id. 11. Id So.2d 198 (Fl. 1987). 13. Crol. Mutter, Moving to Comprtive Negligence in n Er Tort Rem: Dec Tennessee, 57 Tenn. L. Rev. 199, 203 (Winter 1990) 14. See Ohio Rev. Code So. 2d 249 (1995). 16. Id. t Idho 73, 831 P.2d 541 (1992). 18. Id., 831 P.2d t Idho 105, 952 P.2d 1241 (Idho 1998). 20. Id., 952 P.2d t 1244 (quoting sttement purpose 1991 mendment Idho Code 6-805) d 664 (. 1991). 22. Id. t 666 n.2 (quoting 14 M.R.S.. 156) (emphs dded). 23. O.R.C (C). 24. O.R.C (B). 25. O.R.C (B)(1). 26. McDermott, Inc. v. mclyde, 511 U.S. 202, 210 (1994). ECOVERY PTIS RECOVERY MNGEMENT, OPTIS MNGEMENT, INC. INC. INC. D. Pmel D. HnigoskyPmel D. Hnigosky RN / BSN / CRRN CCM / Pmel CLCP D. Hnigosky RN / BSN / CRRN / CCM / CLCP / BSN / CRRN / CCM / CLCP pecilizing in: n: Life Cre Specilizing Plnning in: Future Cost Project re Cse Plnning Mngement ject ure Cost dicl Project & Ctstrophic Worker s Compensti ngement Elder Cre Mngement he: (440) mil: phrncmlcp@ol.com RECOVERY OPTIS MNGEMENT, INC. Life Cre Plnning Future Cost Project Cse Mngement strophic dicl & Ctstrophic dicl & Ctstrophic ensti Worker s Compensti or dditil inmti ctct us t: ment rker s Compensti Elder Cre Mngement re Mngement tct us For t: dditil inmti ctct us t: l inmti Phe: (440) ctct us t: E-mil: phrncmlcp@ol.com RN / BSN / CRRN / CCM / CLCP cmlcp@ol.com CT NEWS Winter

12 Dn Tylor-Kol prtner t nders Lw Offices, LLC. She cn reched t or dn@nderslwfice.net. Voir Dire: Chllenges Cuse by Dn Tylor-Kol s litigtor, cn spend e hundred hours nd tens thousnds dollrs prepring cse tril. You my hve st fcts hve ever seen nd, cuse tril Gods hve smiled up, my hve en ble to get tht e perfect expert to testify. ll th eft will hve en in vin if get wrg jury. Getting right jury prticulrly importnt in tody s politiclly-chrged climte. Tody, more thn ever e, mny jurors come to Court with preexting bes ginst civil justice system nd those who seek redress rein. It thus more importnt thn ever to ferret out those jurors whose bes will prevent client from receiving fir tril. nd, numr peremptory chllenges to which client entitled re limited, it importnt to hve s mny s possible bed veniremen removed cuse. How do do th? s those who re fmilir with Denn Mulvihill s Cuse King presentti 1 know, first thing must do in every tril file pretril nch memorndum reviewing Ohio lw cuse chllenges. Mny judges pprecite th hndy review lw, nd it will sst in mking cuse chllenges during Voir Dire without hving to engge in lengthy sidebr explnt. With Denn permsi we re posting h brief CT website. 2 We urge to csult it s resource own brief. nwhile, th rticle provides brief review some most importnt cuse chllenges cn mke. Per Se Dqulifict For Cuse: R.C ()-(I) Ohio Reved Code Secti ()-(I) rticultes series good cuse chllenges tht per se dqulify pers from jury. These include, re limited to, hving en cvicted crime which by lw renders him dqulified to serve jury, hving n interest in cuse, hving n cti pending tween him nd eir prty, nd most criticlly our purposes ing employer, employee, or spouse, prent, s, or dughter employer or employee... eir prty. 3 The Ohio Supreme Court hs held tht when good cuse chllenges enumerted in R.C ()-(I) re fctully estblhed, potentil juror must dmsed. In Hll v. Bnc One Mngement Corp., 4 Court held s follows: The principl chllenges to prospective jurors incorported into R.C () through (I), which re tried to court, estblh cclusive presumpti dqulificti if found vlid. The court must dms prospective juror nd my rehbilitte or exerce dcreti to set prospective juror up prospective juror s pledge firness. 5 In or words, in determining wher good cuse chllenge hs en estblhed under R.C ()-(I), court s role limited to ssessing chllenge bsed prospective juror s testimy. The court my exerce dcreti or independently evlute 10 CT NEWS Winter

13 prospective juror s imprtility. 6 Thus, if hve medicl mlprctice cse ginst, instnce, Clevelnd Clinic, nd potentil juror s spouse employed by tht entity, court must dms tht prospective juror. In Cuyhog County, where some biggest employers re Clinic, University Hospitl, nd trohelth, good cuse chllenge R.C (E) invluble. Dqulificti Where Prospective Juror Dcloses By H/Her nswers Tht He/She Cn Be Fir nd Imprtil Or Will Not Follow The Lw: R.C (J) But wht if potentil juror tht e teeming with tlk rdio bes sitting re in first row hsn t committed crime, n t relted to nye employed by Clinic, nd doesn t come within ny or good cuse chllenges R.C ()-(I)? Th where ll importnt J chllenge comes in, nd where Cuse King method truly comes into ply. Under R.C (J), good cuse exts to dms juror if he dcloses by h nswers tht he cn fir nd imprtil juror or will follow lw s given to him by court. Two things re especilly eworthy bout wording th provi. First, use plurl in word nswers mens tht testing prospective juror s b involves more thn sking single questi: Cn fir nd imprtil? Of course I cn! most people would sy (unless y were trying to sty f jury). Which to sy tht, in most instnces, we need to pro deeper to determine wher prospective juror cn truly fir nd imprtil. By using plurl with respect to nswer, Generl ssembly cknowledged need more thorough questiing imprtility sue, nd Ohio courts hve recognized th,. 7 Secd, th provi eworthy providing, in lterntive, tht prospective juror my dmsed if he dcloses by h nswers tht he will follow lw s given to him by Court. Here gin, indirect quest re more likely to elicit prospective juror s true feelings thn simply sking wher he or she will follow lw. For instnce, if juror ccedes tht he or she could wrd dollr figure Life Cre Pln bove certin mount (even though cps do pply to such ecomic dmges), tht juror would dmitting tht he or she could follow lw even if h or her nswer to direct questi would orwe elicit positive nswer. In short, J provi wild crd good cuse chllenges. It uthorizes probing prospective juror bes through quest tht get jurors tlking bout wht y relly lieve. Wheres juror likely to nswer yes to quest wher he or she cn fir nd imprtil or will follow lw s given by court, engging venire in cversti through series quest, s uthorized by J provi, will revel prospective jurors true colors, nd enble to get bed jurors dmsed cuse. Dqulificti For Cuse When The Court Hs ny Doubt s To The Juror Being Entirely Unbed : R.C nor importnt juror chllenge to wre tht set th in R.C Tht secti provides tht, in dditi to chllenges set th in R.C , juror my excused cuse bsed suspici prejudice or prtility eir prty or ny or cuse tht my render him or her n unsuitble juror. Th secti furr provides tht vlidity such chllenge shll determined by court nd sustined if court hs ny doubt s to juror s ing entirely unbed. 8 The use th provi, in cjuncti with J provi, bs Cuse King ccept. With both se prov, ide to get jurors tlking in n eft to revel ir deep-seted bes. We ll come into courtroom with our lives experiences which cn t ersed when csidering cse. If cn get potentil jurors tlking, y ten ccede tht, bsed ir own life experiences, e prties, m, strting little hed strting line. nd if tht so, tht juror entirely unbed nd dmsed cuse. Preserving Good Cuse Chllenges For ppel The gol, course, to get bed juror dmsed cuse during voir dire, tht ly res mking good cuse chllenges. Rr, if hve legitimte bs good cuse chllenge, nd court does grnt it to detriment cse, preserving chllenge during voir dire cn bs reversl ppel. s explined in McGrry v. Horlcher, [t]he erreous denil chllenge cuse my prejudicil [nd hence reversible error] cuse it ces prty to use peremptory chllenge prospective juror who hve en excused cuse, giving tht prty fewer peremptories thn lw provides. 9 There exts cse point tht CT NEWS Winter

14 illustrtive th principle: Tdle v. Toledo Surgicl Specilts, Inc. 10 I commend it to reding. In Tdle, our collegues nd friends, Peter H. Weinrger nd Dvid Goldense, fought good fight nd, when left with juror whom court would dms when it ws cler by her nswers tht in her own mind she couldn t fir, y skillfully creted record showing b. peremptory ws used to eliminte juror. They n hd to fce down nor juror who hd worked t Toledo Hospitl whom y hd no peremptories left nd tht juror ws ultimtely seted. Defense verdict! In reversing cse new tril, Court ppels stted tht lthough tril court tried to rehbilitte ltter juror ( Ms. D ), lingering doubts ext regrding wher she could entirely unbed. 11 We hve ll en in frustrting positi hving defense counsel or judges try to rehbilitte bed jurors with simple questi: But could fir in th cse, couldn t? We cn t llow th to stnd nd hve n obligti to perstent. s hs en ten stted by our current Ohio ssociti Justice president, Denn Mulvihill, In th politiclly chrged climte where politicins regulrly run cmpigns which stress importnce closing courthouse doors to injured tort victims, it criticl tht nye who lieves similrly exmined thoroughly in Voir Dire nd tht Court wre ny bes or prejudices tht my reveled which would mke tht pers dqulified jury pursunt to R.C (J) nd In closing, good questiing, my fellow wrriors, nd my Cuse King in cses. End Notes 1. The phrse Cuse King ws first used by Florid jury csultnt, Jy Burke, to descri importnce chllenging cuse jurors who possess bes detrimentl to e s bility to get fir tril. Current OJ President nd CT memr Denn Mulvihill borrowed th phrse h populr voir dire seminr, Cuse King. 2. To ccess th brief, entitled Plintiff s morndum Voir Dire nd Cuse Chllenges, CT memrs my go to mrs Only secti CT website. 3. The lted exmples re tken from R.C. Ellen H. Hirshmn principl t Lint & Hirshmn LLC. She cn reched t or EHH@linthirshmn.com. Sidebr: Chllenges Cuse by Ellen H. Hirshmn I hve ttended seminrs dvocting Cuse King pproch to voir dire. In fct, I hve trveled to Florid nd worked with Jy Burke perslly developing voir dire dedicted to identifying jurors cn chllenge cuse. I gree with mntr tht we try to excuse cuse s mny prospective mlctent jurors s possible, m totlly sold Jy Burke s pproch. The res th tht Jy Burke s pproch hs tendency to cut juror f when nswering quest. I do like cutting jurors f in mnner tht he dvoctes. I perslly hve blended some Jy Burke s pproch to voir dire with Dvid Bll s pproch. In h book Dvid Bll Dmges, Bll proposes getting jurors to tlk. I gree with him. The more get those jurors to tlk, more y let into ir innermost s nd feelings. Th key to gring inmti tht ssts in excusing m cuse. Bll lso explins tht st wy to pose quest to give m chnce to side with e point view or or. (E.g., Now some people think it s unfir to mke doctor py if wht he did ws purpose. Ors think doctor py even if it ws purpose. Which re closer to? ) 1 I hve found tht severl sues relly get jurors tlking. The most explosive sue helth cre. I sk questi, Do lieve good medicl cre right or privilege?, nd boy, does tht get people riled up. I hve hd jurors in Cuyhog County who immeditely wnt to nswer tht questi s so s y hve en moved up into juror s box from bck room during voir dire. One juror tlked bout how it right cuse it gurnteed by United Sttes Cstituti s n spect pursuit hppiness. nor more cservtive juror jumped ll over tht nd sid it bsolutely privilege. fter ll, it s PURSUIT hppiness. Not everye gurnteed hppiness. Guess who bumped mer juror nd who bumped ltter? My point tht need to get jurors tlking nd tlking hestly. I hve prepred some voir dire exmint tht I m hppy to dcuss/shre with nye. Just give me cll ( ) or emil me t ehh@linthirshmn. com. End Notes 1. Dvid Bll Dmges, t p CT NEWS Winter

15 (), (B), (C) nd (E). The or express good cuse chllenges lted in R.C re: (D) Tht he merly ws juror in sme cuse;... (F) Tht he subpoened in good fith s witness in cuse; (G) Tht he kin by csnguinity or ffinity within fourth degree, to eir prty, or to ttorney eir prty; (H) Tht he or h spouse, prent, s, or dughter prty to nor cti n pending in ny court in which n ttorney in cuse n tril n ttorney, eir or ginst him; (I) Tht he, ing regulr juror term, hs lredy served s tlesmn in tril ny cuse, in ny court record in county within preceding twelve mths; [nd] (J) Tht he dcloses by h nswers tht he cn fir nd imprtil juror or will follow lw s given to him by court. With respect to lst good cuse chllenge, see dcussi bove, infr Ohio St.3d 484, 2007 Ohio Id. t syllbus (emphs dded). 6. Id. t See, e.g., Stte v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 325, Ohio-425 (ffirming juror s dqulificti cuse when she testified tht imprtility would extremely difficult, even though she lso cceded she could lten to evidence nd follow court s instruct in respse to leding quest from opposing ttorney). 8. R.C (emphs dded). See lso, Stte v. Cornwell, 86 Ohio St.3d 560, 563, 1999-Ohio-125; Stte v. llrd, 75 Ohio St.3d 482, 495, 1996-Ohio-208 (juror excused cuse if court hs ny doubt s to juror ing entirely unbed ) Ohio pp.3d 33, th pp. Dt. No. L , 2008-Ohio Id. t 50 (emphs by Court). Sidebr Two: Chllenges Cuse by Ellen H. Hirshmn Editor s Note: Of course, ll judges cduct voir dire in sme wy. Some llow prties to sk quest, with no time limitt; ors llow quest, with strict time limitt; nd some cduct voir dire mselves with quest submitted by ttorneys. Ellen Hirshmn sked ttorneys who hve recently tried cses in vrious counties to dcuss how judges in ir trils hndled voir dire. Here re some comments she received. Cuyhog County My most recent trils in Cuyhog County hve en with viting Judges Griffin, Rocker, Corrign nd Coyne. These judges hve restricted lwyers in ir questiing prospective jurors. The questiing usully limited to eight potentil jurors in box. There ctinues to n going problem, however, with juror vilbility. I hve en delyed upwrds 1 ½ dys in strting tril due to lck jurors... Thoms Brunn, Clevelnd, Ohio Hmilt County Judge Thoms Nurre, viting judge, cducts peremptory chllenges t side br out hering jury, so y re unwre who dmsed prticulr juror... Pm Pntges, Clevelnd, Ohio Lucs County My recent experience in Toledo with retired Judge Bowmn ws tht he llowed lwyers to sk mjority quest without limitt. The entire pnel ws questied nd, fterwrd, peremptories were exerced in chmrs ny memr pnel, just first eight... Chrtopher llino, Clevelnd, Ohio din County In cse severl yers go, Judge Kimbler gve plintiffs 6 peremptory chllenges nd ech co-defendnts 3... Pm Pntges, Clevelnd, Ohio Richlnd County Judge Hens sets 10 jurors t completi voir dire, delys identifying who two lternte jurors re until end tril. He pulls two nmes out ht to identify two lterntes, n sends remining eight bck into room delirt. He lieves th motivtes ll ten jurors to py ttenti. Judge Hens lso refuses to llow jury questinires or jury e-tking... Pm Pntges, Clevelnd, Ohio Strk County In Strk County, jurors nmes re nymous nd ech ssigned numr. You receive skeletl inmti sheet ech potentil juror n hour or so e jury selecti gins. bout ly meningful inmti those sheets juror (or h/her spouse s) plce employment, nd prior jury. Most judges require tht quest sked entire group s opposed to first eight in box. One judge cducts lmost ll voir dire perslly, nd re little ttorney involvement. It pys to red Strk County Locl Rules , which cover jury selecti nd voir dire, prticulrly Rules ! We re tunte to hve nch tht generlly receptive to new nd innovtive ides, like pretril mot voir dire sues, juror questinires, nd or novel pproches to unique sues. Do frid to suggest something new or different. Chnces re, it will csidered its merits nd dmsed out hnd... Brin Wils, Cnt, Ohio Summit County In two recent trils in Summit County with Judge l McCrty, entire pnel prospective jurors ws questied, which csted 50 people in e cse nd 80 in secd cse. Peremptory chllenges could ly used first 8 jurors in box t time chllenge ws mde. Plintiffs were given numr chllenges equl to totl numr given to defendnts. Chrtopher llino, Clevelnd, Ohio CT NEWS Winter

16 Kthleen J. St. John principl t Nurenrg, Pr, Heller & McCrthy Co., LP. She cn reched t or kstjohn@nphm.com. dicl uthorizt nd Your Client s Right To Privcy by Kthleen J. St. John Wht do orthopedic injuries from n utomobile ccident hve in comm with client s gynecologicl records? Nothing, sy? In most Ohio ppellte dtricts, d right; or, t lest, d hve opportunity to prove re right through n in cmer inspecti. However, in t lest e ppellte dtrict Secd it hs en held tht defendnts seeking client s medicl records hve right to hve client sign blnket medicl uthorizt permitting defense to sort through client s records to determine wht s relevnt nd wht n t. Th rticle seeks to estblh why mjority view in Ohio followed insted Secd Dtrict s holding in Bogrt v. Blkely 1, nd wht cn do to protect client s interest in keeping irrelevnt medicl records cfidentil. The Ptient s Right To Privcy lthough t comm lw re ws no physicinptient privilege, ctemporry lw recognizes importnce keeping medicl records cfidentil. The Ohio Public Records ct, instnce, prohibits public institut from relesing medicl records tht re subject public records request. 2 The federl Helth Inmti Portbility nd ccountbility ct 1996 ( HIP ) prevents helth cre providers from dclosing medicl inmti except in certin circumstnces. 3 The Ohio Supreme Court hs recognized tort brech cfidentility relted to medicl inmti 4, nd hs pplied th tort to helth cre providers nd third prties who dclose inmti without uthorizti to do so. 5 Most importnt, our purposes, Ohio Reved Code codifies ptient s right to keep medicl records cfidentil through sttutorily creted physicin-ptient privilege. Tht sttute, R.C (B), provides tht physicin shll testify ccerning communicti mde by ptient to physicin, unless certin except pply or unless ptient deemed to hve wived privilege. 6 The except or wiver occur in numr wys expressed in sttute. 7 s relevnt here, privilege does pply nd physicin... my testify or... compelled to testify if medicl clim..., n cti wrgful deth, ny or type civil cti, or clim under Chpter Reved Code filed by ptient, persl representtive ptient..., or ptient s gurdin or or legl representtive. 8 The wiver tht occurs up filing civil cti bsolute. Rr, sttute provides tht if testimil privilege wived cuse civil cti hs en filed, physicin... my compelled to testify or to submit to dcovery under Rules Civil Procedure ly s to communicti mde to physicin... by ptient in questi in tht relti, or physicin s... dvice to ptient in questi, tht relted cuslly or htoriclly to physicl or mentl injuries tht re relevnt to sues in... civil cti CT NEWS Winter

17 Under Ohio lw, ree, dcovery ptient s medicl records sttutorily limited to those records tht re cuslly or htoriclly relted to injuries in questi in lwsuit. The problem tht res, nd tht cse lw ttempts to resolve, who gets to mke determinti wher ptient s medicl records re cuslly or htoriclly relted to injuries t sue in lwsuit. The Mjority View: The Ptient s Right To n In Cmer Inspecti It xiomtic tht ce privileged inmti dclosed, re no wy it to mde privte ce gin. 10 ccordingly, overwhelming mjority Ohio ppellte courts tht hve ddressed sue hve held tht, where re good fith dpute s to wher certin medicl records re cuslly or htoriclly relted to injuries t sue, documents provided to court n in cmer review to determine wher y re subject to dcovery. 11 The clssic situti in which th sue res th. The defendnt in, sy, motor vehicle ccident cti requests plintiff to sign e or more medicl records uthorizt directing plintiff s helth cre providers to relese plintiff s records to defendnt s ttorney. Sometimes uthorizt re limited in time still request ptient s entire medicl htory during tht restricted time period; or times defense demnds blnket medicl uthorizt, relesing records s to plintiff s entire medicl htory. In se situt, three competing interests re t stke. The plintiff hs n interest in protecting her privcy, nd dclosing ny records cuslly or htoriclly relted to injuries sustined in ccident. fter ll, physicin-ptient privilege designed to encourge ptients to mke full dclosure ir symptoms nd cdit to ir physicins without fer tht such mtters will lter come public. 12 If orthopedic injuries, instnce, re wht re ing lleged, plintiff hs substntil interest in keeping detils her sexul or reproductive htory privte. The plintiff lso hs n interest in knowing wht records hve en turned over to defense. Blnket medicl uthorizt deprive her ice to which she entitled in dcovery under Civil Rules. The defense, or hnd, hs n interest in obtining full dcovery. Receiving records directly from helth cre providers my more efficient. nd, if plintiff left to determine wht cuslly or htoriclly relted, defense might lieve relevnt records will withheld. Finlly, tril courts hve n interest in hving to cduct in cmer inspect in ech nd every civil cti in which prty s physicl or mentl helth t sue. Good Fith Belief Stndrd: Plintiff s Burden Some Ohio ppellte courts resolve se competing interests by requiring fctul bs ctending tht certin records re privileged ntecedent to n in cmer inspecti. 13 Under th pproch, if tril court finds re good fith lief tht certin records re privileged, it need cduct n in cmer inspecti. 14 To estblh good fith lief, plintiff my ssert tht she exmined records in questi nd found hing to suggest prior tretment tht might, in ny wy, relted to injuries [she] sustined [in ccident in questi]. 15 Or courts hve found good fith lief to ext bsed simply fct tht dcovery request ws overbrod its fce. For instnce, in n uto ccident cse where plintiff lleged injuries to her jws, neck, bck, rms, wrts nd vrious or prts her body, s well s pin nd mentl nguh, Seventh Dtrict found request plintiff s OB/GYN records to overbrod its fce, requiring tril court to cduct n in cmer inspecti. 16 lterntive Viewpoint 1: Plintiff Should Hve No Burden t lest e ppellte judge hs opined tht it unfir to plce burden plintiff to estblh good fith lief tht medicl records defendnt seeks re privileged. In Pitt v. Miller, Judge Cosme, ccurring tht tril court bused its dcreti in ordering plintiff to sign blnket medicl uthorizti, dgreed tht plintiff hve ny burden to rticulte ress why requested records re privileged. Insted, focus requiring prty seeking dcovery to nrrowly tilor medicl uthorizt to seek ly relevnt medicl records: Requiring requests to crefully tilored provides two-fold nefit. First, such requests prevent wste both judicil nd ttorney time nd resources. Overbrod dcovery requests utomticlly crete dcovery dputes. Plintiff objects, which in turn, triggers likelihood court involvement. Dcovery requests tht re properly frmed to solicit ly relevnt inmti would reduce need in cmer inspect. Court involvement would ly required when fctul (sic) bsed true impsse res ccerning dcoverbility specific records. 17 CT NEWS Winter

18 lterntive Viewpoint 2: Plintiff Hs No Burden When uthorizti Is Overbrod Or Ohio ppellte courts, including Eighth Dtrict 18, hve t lest implicitly recognized tht plintiff entitled to n in cmer inspecti whenever, from overbredth medicl uthorizti, it ppers tht some mteril requested my protected by privilege. In such cses, ny ccern tht courts will unduly burdened with in cmer reviews kept in check by court s bility to subject prty to snct if she unresbly ssert[s] privilege. 19 The Minority View: Plintiff My Be Required To Sign Blnket dicl uthorizt Without n In Cmer Inspecti The le Ohio ppellte court tht cdes requiring plintiff to sign blnket medicl uthorizt without n in cmer inspecti Secd Dtrict. Its positi ws set th recently in Bogrt v. Blkely. 20 Bogrt rose from n utomobile ccident in which plintiff lleged multiple permnent physicl nd mentl injuries. The tril court grnted moti to compel plintiff to provide full inmti regrding h pst medicl htory nd uthorizt sufficient to obtin relese ll medicl records generted within lst ten yers within certin dte. 21 lthough plintiff did ficilly move n in cmer inspecti, he did rgue, in oppositi to moti, tht n in cmer review cn used to determine wht nd wht dcoverble. 22 The tril court rejected th rgument, finding tht [i]n th ppellte dtrict nswer to questi wher Plintiff my required to sign blnk medicl uthorizt s hve en requested during dcovery yes. 23 The court ppels greed or, in ny event, found tril court did buse its dcreti in compelling plintiff to sign blnket uthorizt. The court s nlys ws driven by n older Ohio Supreme Court cse, Stte ex rel. Floyd v. Court Comm Ples, 24 which ws bsed n erlier versi privilege sttute. t time Floyd, filing n cti did wive physicin-ptient privilege until plintiff k stnd to testify. Under those circumstnces, nd pplying Civ. R. 16 nd locl court rules, Court held tht requiring plintiff to produce h/her medicl records in dcovery did result in wiver privilege; hence, plintiff could compelled to produce medicl records in dcovery cuse she could still re ttorney-client privilege t tril. The Secd Dtrict followed Floyd in Hort v. ddy, 25 where it upheld tril court s order compelling plintiff to turn over ll medicl records bsed Floyd dtincti tween producing records in dcovery versus hving m dmitted t tril. The Tenth Dtrict, in Wrd v. Johns s Indus. Cterers, Inc., rejected holding in Hort, stting tht Hort seemingly ignores fct tht R.C (B) (2) s protecti regrding records tht re cuslly or htoriclly relted extends to dcovery, just to testimy. 26 Despite dcussing Wrd deci, 27 Secd Dtrict in Bogrt ctinued to follow Hort. 28 The court lieved tht Hort st resolves competing interests, though it ws most ccerned with lleviting burden tril courts. Thus, court in Bogrt stted: s we ed in Hort, The dtincti tween dcovery nd dclosure ttempts to ccommodte three competing vlues: cfidentility privileged medicl inmti, persl injury defendnt s right to effectively prepre tril, nd minimizti judicil involvement in pretril dcovery dputes. Perhps no tter ccommodti possible, prticulrly when tril judges must mnge incresing numrs cses. 29 The court in Bogrt lso rejected plintiff s ctenti tht in cmer review necessity when prties cn gree wher medicl records re relted cuslly or htoriclly to injuries climed. Oddly, court rejected th rgument t lest in prt cuse plintiff filed to move n in cmer inspecti even though, erlier in opini, court ed tht plintiff rgued to tril court tht in cmer inspect cn used to determine wht nd dcoverble. 31 But, here gin, court s deci seems to pivot esing tril court s burden, it dded: Prior to tril, it unresble nd imprcticl to require tril judge to ttempt to determine wher plintiff s extensive medicl htory relevnt to underlying cti, nd we ccordingly cclude tht Bogrt entitled to in cmer review. 32 The Problem With Bogrt The problem with Bogrt tht it trmples plintiff s right to protect her unrelted medicl records from dcovery. Why defendnt s ttorney, prlegl, legl sstnt, or expert witness permitted to ogle plintiff s OB/GYN records when wht lleged in lwsuit neck sprin? s lte Chief Justice Moyer stted: Biddle stressed importnce 16 CT NEWS Winter

19 upholding n individul s right to medicl cfidentility yd just fcts tht cse. [I]t ptient some medicl prctitier, lwyer, or court to determine wht ptient s interests re with regrd to cfidentil medicl inmti. **** s Supreme Court Clini hs observed in dcussing relted ccept right to privcy, such right so much e totl secrecy s it right to define e s circle intimcy to choose who shll see neth quotidin msk. **** If right to cfidentility to men nything, n individul must ble to direct dclosure h or her own privte inmti. 33 s ed in Wrd, moreover, Ohio s privilege sttute protects unrelted medicl records ly from dclosure t tril lso from dcovery. Thus, Bogrt s relince mer cse lw interpreting mterilly different versi privilege sttute does give proper deference to current legltive mndte or to plintiff s interests. The mjority view, or hnd, gives proper recogniti to ech competing interests. Neir prties interests re hrmed by hving court cduct n in cmer inspecti. nd court s interest in ing overburdened protected s lg s re some mechnm ensuring tht it ly clled to inspect records where relevnce genuinely in dpute. One suggesti pseudo in cmer inspecti process whereby plintiff would sign uthorizt relesing records to n outside vendor. The plintiff s counsel would n exmine records, nd if she lieved certin records to privileged, she would submit ly those records n in cmer inspecti, while ors would relesed to defendnts. 34 Th method llevites court s burden by minimizing instnces judicil involvement, while ensuring tht ly those records truly in dpute re plced e court. Th method lso ensures tht plintiff ice ll records received by defense. 35 lterntively, defendnt obtin pertinent medicl inmti by deposing medicl records custodin. depositi will llow [plintiff s] counsel to seek protective order or n in cmer review privte nd cfidentil inmti tht irrelevnt to her clim. 36 Finlly, requiring defendnts to nrrowly tilor medicl uthorizt lso serves to blnce prties interests nd minimize court involvement. If combinti se methods were used, ech side would doing its prt to unburden tril court needless in cmer reviews, while protecting ir clients respective rights to privcy nd dcovery. End Notes 1. 2nd pp. Dt. No C 13, 2010-Ohio (Sept. 24, 2010). 2. Hgemn v. Southwest Generl Helth Center, 119 Ohio St.3d 185, 2008-Ohio-3343, 9 (citing R.C ()(1)()). 3. Hgemn, t 9 (citing 45 C.F.R ). 4. Biddle v. Wrren Gen. Hosp. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 395, 1999-Ohio Biddle, supr; Hgemn, supr. 6. R.C (B) (1). 7. See R.C (B)(1)()-(e); R.C (B) (2)()-(b); nd R.C R.C (B)(1)()(iii). 9. R.C (B)(3)() (emphs dded). 10. Neftzer v. Neftzer (12th Dt. 2000), 140 Ohio pp.3d 618, See, e.g., Crgile v. Brrow (1st Dt.), 182 Ohio pp.3d 55, 2009-Ohio-371, n.5; Nester v. Lim moril Hospitl (3rd Dt.), 139 Ohio pp.3d 883, 2000-Ohio-1916; Folmr v. Griffin (5th Dt.), 166 Ohio pp.3d 154, 2006-Ohio-1849, 25; Pitt v. Miller, 6th pp. Dt. No. L , 2010-Ohio-1363, 16; Ptters v. Zdnski, 7th pp. Dt. No. 03 BE 1, 2003-Ohio-5464; Wooten v. Westfield Ins. Co. (8th Dt.), 181 Ohio pp.3d 59, Ohio-494 ; Ms v. Booker (10th Dt.), 185 Ohio pp.3d 19, Ohio-6198, 1; Sweet v. Sweet, 11th Dt. No , Ohio-7060, 13; Neftzer, supr, (12th Dt.), 140 Ohio pp.3d t Pitt, supr, 2010-Ohio-1363, 24 (Cosme, J., ccurring) (quoting Stte v. ntill (1964), 176 Ohio St. 61, 64-65). 13. See, e.g., Pitt, supr, t Ptters, supr, 2003-Ohio-5464, 19; Pitt, supr, t Pitt, supr, t Ptters, supr, t Pitt, supr, t 28 (Cosme, J., ccurring). 18. See, e.g., Wooten, supr, 181 Ohio pp.3d 59, 2009-Ohio-494; Miller v. Bssett, 8th Dt. No , 2006-Ohio-3590; Porter v. Litigti Mgt., Inc., 8th Dt. No , 2000 Ohio pp. LEXIS Crgile, supr, 2009-Ohio-371 t 12 ( unresbly sserting privilege my subject prty to snct by tril court. ) 20. 2nd Dt. No C 13, 2010-Ohio-4526 (Sept. 24, 2010). 21. Id. t Id. 23. Id. t (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d nd Dt. No , 1993 Ohio pp. LEXIS Wrd v. Johns s Indus. Cterers, Inc., 10th Dt. No. 97PE , 1998 Ohio pp. LEXIS 2841, * Bogrt t Hort, in fct, hs en overruled, lthough or procedurl grounds. See, Hort v. ddy (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 181, 1994-Ohio Bogrt t 63 (quoting Hort t *14). 30. Id. t Id. t Id. t Hgemn, supr, 2008-Ohio-3343 t 13 (quoting Biddle, supr, 86 Ohio St.3d t 408; nd Hill v. Ntl. Collegite thletic ssn. (1994), 7 Cl. 4th 1, 26). 34. See, e.g., Wooten, supr, 181 Ohio pp.3d 59, 2009-Ohio-494, t very lest, if plintiff required to sign blnket medicl uthorizti, n ddendum dded requiring defense to provide plintiff with copies ll records received from plintiff s medicl cre providers. 36. Gery v. Schroering (Ky. pp. 1998), 979 S.W.2d 134, 135. CT NEWS Winter

20 Once gin th yer group CT memrs hd privilege volunteering t Youth Chllenge Rce Dy event. Dn Tylor-Kol, CT memr who first introduced us to Youth Chllenge, nd ttorneys nd fmily memrs from Nurenrg, Pr firm spent Sturdy morning in ugust mnning wter stt, shouting times to rcers, giving direct, tying bllos, nd most importntly cheering rcers in ble-bodied nd chllenged div. The Rce Dy event involved two different rces 5k fund-ring event in which blebodied runners py fee to support orgnizti, nd 1m rce Youth Chllenge kids. The chllenged children re pired with ble-bodied children sme ge who sst m in completing course. t end, wrds re given to top finhers in ech divi. CT hs supported Youth Chllenge 1999 when n-president Bob Lint proposed we dopt n ficil chrity. Lint, Tylor-Kol, nd current CT president Brin Een hve served terms Youth Chllenge bord directors, nd Een hs served s president tht bord. Youth Chllenge nprit orgnizti med lmost 35 yers go by Mry Sue Tn. The orgnizti provides recretil ctivities children with physicl dbilities. From its humble ginnings plyground in Firview Prk, orgnizti hs grown to helping 150 dbled children nd providing opportunities 400 teen volunteers yer. fter completing $2 milli Cpitl Cmpign, Youth Chllenge moved into new hedqurters in Westlke in CT NEWS Winter