by KPMLAW | Mar 22, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Defending Cases in General District Court Written by Lindsey D. Hunt Edited by Janeen B. Koch With more and more cases being filed in General District Court these days, it is worth taking a closer look at the procedural and discovery rules that govern in that court. Jurisdictional Limit/Advantages The maximum amount that may be sued for in General District Court is $25,000. Circuit Courts may hear civil cases in which the amount in controversy is over $4,500 but many less serious property damage and personal injury cases are now being filed in General District Court. Cases in General District Court are heard and decided by the judge. There are no juries in General District Court. With the limited discovery available in General District Court (as discussed further below), trying cases in General District Court is generally less expensive and less time consuming. General District Courts are “courts not of record” which means that, unlike Circuit Court, there is no automatic recording of the proceedings. However, Rule 7A:6 provides that the court may allow recording of the proceedings by a court reporter or other means. If the defense believes the plaintiff will lose in General District Court, and that it’s likely the plaintiff will appeal, it is worth considering having a court reporter present to capture the plaintiff’s testimony. This testimony could then be used if the plaintiff attempts to provide inconsistent testimony on appeal. Right to Nonsuit One of the often frustrating aspects of civil defense practice, in both General District Court and Circuit Court, is the right of nonsuit. Virginia Code Section 8.01-380 provides that a party...
by KPMLAW | Mar 21, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
KPM LAW announced its new slate of officers Monday. Effective March 15th, John Messersmith will serve as President and Secretary Treasurer. Bill Pfund, Claire Carr, and Brian Cafritz will serve as Vice Presidents. States Chip Kalbaugh, who held the post of President for the past 25 years and continues to serve as a Director, “We have never had such motivated and focused leadership. The momentum that this team has created is exciting. The firm is in exceptional hands and I can’t wait to celebrate its accomplishments well into the...
by KPMLAW | Mar 21, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
While attending The National Retail & Restaurant Defense Association in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. earlier this month, Claire Carr presented on the topics of pre-litigation investigation and taking more effective Recorded Statements. Claire has been appointed to chair the Workers’ Compensation Committee of NRRDA for 2016-2017. Brian Cafritz, a founding member and past president of NRRDA, also presented and was re-elected to the Board of Directors to serve a three-year term. NRRDA’s mission is to advance and protect the interests of the retail and restaurant industry. By providing members with information, strategies and tools, NRRDA works to reduce claims and better manage risk; mount effective defense strategies against claims and litigation; and foster and encourage a cooperative relationship among the members of the Association. NRRDA recently welcomed 53 new members and noted record attendance at this year’s conference. NRRDA 2017 will take place in San Diego, CA, March 1-3. ...
by KPMLAW | Mar 21, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
John Messersmith has been named President of KPM LAW. John has been an officer and director of the firm since its inception, has been responsible for overseeing the firm’s operations for most of the last 25 years, and is one of the most influential forces behind the firms growth and success. John will lead the firm’s four offices, 36 attorneys, and more than 60 staff. John is an AV-Rated attorney, and member of TIDA, DRI, and CLM, among other professional organizations. ...
by KPMLAW | Mar 21, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
KPM LAW’s Janeen Koch, will be presenting and moderating the roundtable discussion “Handling Traumatic Brain Injury Cases – From the Initial Accident through Trial” at the upcoming Claims & Litigation Management Alliance Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida, April 6-8. Janeen has assembled a team of experts including Melissa Welden, Senior Liability Claims Specialist with Central Mutual Insurance Company, Tracy Yaun, corporate claims counsel for Berkley Southeast Insurance Group, and Doug Gibson a licensed psychologist and clinical neuropsychologist with MedPsych of Virginia, to participate in the roundtable. For more information, contact Janeen Koch at janeen.koch@kpmlaw.com or look for her informative session at the CLM conference on April...
by KPMLAW | Mar 21, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
KPM LAW continues to benefit from the talent of a bright and eager crop of young attorneys who bring to the firm fresh ideas, who enhance the firm’s tried and true experience, and who represent our next generation of leaders. It is with great pride that we announce Matt Daly and Jessica Relyea’s promotion to partner. Both have proven legal acumen in addition to an exceptional capacity for embracing new projects and initiatives, developing meaningful business relationships, and driving the firm forward. Please join us in celebrating their well-deserved promotions and wishing them continued success at KPM...
by KPMLAW | Mar 21, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Written by Andrew Willis, Esq. Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq. Workers’ compensation claims involving office chairs are beginning to rise as an increasing number of workers in Virginia and across the U.S. move into sedentary jobs, including claimants working from home. This article looks at the state of the law in Virginia on work accidents involving office chairs and provides guidance on what you can ask during your recorded statement to help make the right decision when it comes to accepting or denying a claim involving an office chair. The Law The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission has decided a number of cases involving injuries to claimants who sat in wheeled office chairs. The issue often litigated with office chairs is whether the accident “arises out of” the employment. The mere happening of an accident at the workplace, not caused by any work-related risk or significant work-related exertion, is not compensable. An injury “arises out of” the employment if there is a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. As with cases involving claimants who simply fall while walking, the Commission generally requires some kind of defect or hazardous condition before an injury involving an office chair can be compensable. Specifically, the Commission has held that the mere “fact that [a] chair had wheels, of itself, is not sufficient to establish compensability.” Bell v. Sheetz, JCN VA00000401489 (March 29, 2013). In Baker v. B&H Construction, VWC File No. 216-56-07 (April 18, 2005), a claimant suffered a compensable injury when the wheels of his rolling office chair became tangled in...
by KPMLAW | Feb 23, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Gary Reinhardt, Esq. Have you used a Transportation Network Company (TNC) yet? That is the fancy, statutory name for “ride share” companies such as Uber and Lyft. As most are aware, a TNC relies on its drivers to use their personal vehicle. The prospective passenger contacts a TNC driver through the use of a smartphone app. From there, the driver acts as a typical taxicab although personal experience has shown these cars to be cleaner and the driver to be nicer. Payment for the ride is made via credit or debit card already entered into the TNC’s digital platform. The TNC concept is fairly new and courts have yet to sort out the morass of legal and insuring issues these ride shares cause. State statutes set out a comprehensive regulatory framework for these companies, including requirements that essentially label these TNC vehicles and require minimum insurance limits. Starting with Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-2099.48, the Virginia legislature sets out what a TNC and its driver must do to operate in the Commonwealth. This statute requires that all TNC drivers carry “proof of coverage under each in-force TNC insurance policy, which may be displayed as part of the digital platform, and each in-force personal automobile insurance policy covering the vehicle.” This same statute limits a driver from driving more than 13 hours during any 24 hour period. The statute also requires that a TNC vehicle have a different color decal on the license plate, the year decal that shows you have renewed the vehicle registration. Virginia TNC vehicles will have a black decal with yellow “VA” letters and...
by KPMLAW | Feb 23, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Lauren Gibbons, Esq. Edited by Janeen Koch, Esq. Although the autonomous vehicle was merely a cartoon concept when “The Jetsons” aired on television over 50 years ago, the time of the autonomous vehicle has finally arrived. While fully autonomous vehicles are not a common mode of transportation just yet, their operation is not far into the future. Currently, several major car manufacturers have implemented automated features (i.e. automated parking and automatic emergency braking) which puts technology well on the road to fully autonomous vehicle operation. These technological developments pose major questions for liability analysis in motor vehicle collision cases. There are countless motor tort cases filed, settled, and/or litigated every year. These cases generally center around the legal theories of driver negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of the risk, which are all dependent on human perception, acts, and/or omissions. Based on the evolution of fully human-operated vehicles to computer-controlled vehicles, it is inevitable that the auto tort litigation process will drastically change from the current system we have now. Several states, including California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, and Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., have already enacted legislation addressing the use of autonomous vehicles. These laws, however, seem to avoid acknowledging partially autonomous vehicles and the liability implications that stem from hybrid human-machine operated vehicles. On May 30, 2013, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a preliminary report about automated vehicles. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles (2013). The NHTSA is constantly updating this Statement as a guide for development of standards and regulations...
by KPMLAW | Feb 23, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Jessica Gorman, Esq. Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq. What additional injuries an employer and carrier may be responsible for under the compensable consequence doctrine or chain of causation rule You have an accepted accident for which an injured worker has injured his left ankle. While recuperating from surgery on his left ankle, his ankle gave way causing a right knee injury. Are you responsible for the right knee injury? The answer is yes. Subsequently, that right knee injury causes the injured worker to fall causing a new injury to the right knee. Are you responsible for that new knee injury? The answer may be no as a consequence of a compensable consequence, which is not covered under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act. In Virginia, the doctrine of compensable consequence “is well established and has been in existence for many years.” Williams Indus., v. Wagoner, 24 Va. App. 181, 186, 480 S.E.2d 788, 790 (1997). This doctrine provides the standard that “when a primary injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act is shown to have arisen out of the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury is compensable if it is a direct and natural result of a primary injury.” Leonard v. Arnold, 218 Va. 210, 237 S.E.2d 97 (1977). Specifically, any such secondary injury is related as it if occurred in the course of and arising out of the injured workers’ employment. Bartholow Drywall Co. v. Hill, 12 Va. App. 790, 794, 407 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1991). This doctrine is also known as the chain of causation rule and provides and states somewhat differently...
