|
Solomon Grundy posted:Further confusing the situation is the fact that in many hospitals, the physicians staffing anesthesia "departments" are actually provided by a contracting entity, rather than being hospital employees. For example, Bumblefuck Hospital may sign a contract with East Bumblefuck Anesthesiology Associates, a limited liability company, to provide anesthesiology staffing at the hospital. EBAA then hires the doctors and assigns a rotation to the Hospital. So then you get billed by the hospital for the anesthesia drug, and by EBAA for the anesthesiologist to administer the drug. Which also sucks because you have two co-pays instead of one.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Which also sucks because you have two co-pays instead of one. But those evil profiteering attorneys and their fees, we need tort reform :republicandoctorfroth:
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
Hi! I was directed here from the Stupid/Small Questions Megathread. Nearly all my knowledge about US courts and justice process comes from US TV shows/movies. I was wondering to what degree the judge can affect the trial. Is he *only* there to act as a sort of ratifier of the jury's decisions and overseer of court protocol? I ask this because in all cases I can remember, whenever "objection!" is called, it's always done by one of the attorneys. Does the judge have no means to affect questioning/examination unless an attorney first calls for it? I'm naturally excluding instances where the court itself is being held in contempt and similar incidents (the witness is actually being aggressive etc.). Let's just say that the jury is being mislead or some other misconduct of justice is happening that the attorney is completely missing (due to incompetence or inexperience). Can the judge himself make any sort of correction here, or does he just have to bite down and let it happen? Can I assume that any time an attorney objects to a line of questioning, it would have continued without a hitch if he hadn't intervened? This is just to satisfy my curiosity, I'm not really going anywhere with this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Criminal or civil? In criminal, there are two different types of trials. There is a bench trial, which is presided on only by a judge. He is the fact finder. This will only be mandated in the lowest level offenses. Otherwise, it is a choice of the parties. Jury trials. The jury is the finder of fact. However, if upon motion at the right time, the judge doesn't believe the prosecution has given facts that support conviction, the judge can dismiss those charges. In no case in a jury trial can a judge override a jury and find someone guilty. The judge can do some questioning of the witness, though it is kind of frowned upon. Judges can also object themselves to lines of questioning, but it better be extremely serious for a judge to intervene. Generally failure to object is the attorney's fault not the judges problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
I'm more interested in the jury trial, yeah. Basically, you have prosecution/defense presenting evidence, questioning witnesses etc. I'm not sure what the correct terms are but from your description it sounds like what I'm talking about. It's interesting, though. So in a lot of cases the judge has no option but to bite down and let the process continue? I guess it's understandable, since the attorneys should be the experts on their clients' respective cases and a judge should not let personal convictions interfere since he doesn't have all the facts. It just seems like a game, of sorts. An experienced attorney could get away with leading the witness, say, because a rookie is missing all the signs or whatever. A judge would usually let something like that carry on unless it becomes, like you say, extremely serious?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
The reality is that different judges run their courtrooms differently, and the mechanisms by which a judge's actions may be constrained are pretty limited within their discretion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
Daemus posted:Hi! I was directed here from the Stupid/Small Questions Megathread. Textbook version: We have an adversarial judicial system, premised on the idea that if both sides bring their 'A' game, the facts will come out and justice will prevail. With both sides bringing their 'A' game, the judge's function is as referee, and needs to take a laissez-faire attitude toward injecting him/herself into the trial. [Criminal law] Reality: If the DA is asleep at the switch, the judge will glare or cough at the DA until he/she wakes up and starts objecting. In extreme cases, the judge will object sua sponte (of his own will) and berate the defense counsel for their unethical conduct. If defense counsel is asleep at the switch, the judge's job is more difficult. Generally, he or she will not object for defense counsel because to do so would reduce the chances of a conviction. However, the one thing worse than an acquittal is a retrial - so the judge has to object for an incompetent defense attorney just enough so that the case doesn't get reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). Luckily for the judge, IAC is pretty much a dead letter, except in death penalty cases, where it's a merely in hospice care. [/cynicism] (I've been catching up on unpublished cases.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for the answers! Very interesting stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
joat mon posted:[Criminal law] Reality: If the DA is asleep at the switch, the judge will glare or cough at the DA until he/she wakes up and starts objecting. In extreme cases, the judge will object sua sponte (of his own will) and berate the defense counsel for their unethical conduct. Until extremely recently, introducing partition ratio evidence in DUI cases could be ruled inadmissible by a judge in nearly every case with enough supposed that he will never get overturned ever.* But it is still the prosecution's job to object. So I get up, start crossing on partition ration. DA doesn't care or doesn't know. Judge (recent ex-DA) calls us up and say "is there some new case that makes this admissible?" Dammit! Meanwhile, asking a cop who is currently being sued for lying in a police report if he's ever been accused of lying in a police report? Irrelevant! *This has now changed, kinda, YAY!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
Adar posted:The bill is actually from the anesthesiology department at the hospital, so this is relevant and you're probably right. Either way, sounds like I'm going to court. Fun. If you're honest-to-goodness getting sued, I'd think your first step would be to demand joinder of the insurance company? After all, you've got an indemnification claim against them and the size and nature of your claim necessarily depends on how the hospital's action against you goes. IANANYL.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
Hypothetical question here inspired by the events in Wisconsin and Ohio. I'm wondering if federal law limits the ability for a state to expand collective bargaining for private employees. For instance, does federal law prevent a state from enacting the so-called "card check" (Employee Free Choice Act). I understand that union recognition is done with the National Labor Relations Board, but could a state have their own "State Labor Relations Board"? Thanks in advance!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
Can anyone comment on the at-fault cases of pedestrian / bicycle accidents? Specifically where the bicyclist was hospitalized but the pedestrian was not. Is it possible for the bicyclist to sue for damages, and in what situations will they have a strong case? This is in CA, for reference. I can go more in detail if need be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 10:55
|
|
|
Ruggan posted:Can anyone comment on the at-fault cases of pedestrian / bicycle accidents? Specifically where the bicyclist was hospitalized but the pedestrian was not. Is it possible for the bicyclist to sue for damages, and in what situations will they have a strong case? This is in CA, for reference. Unless there's a highway code that mandates cyclists should stay on the road and not on the pavement this should be a matter of straight-up negligence that depends upon a common sense evaluation of the facts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 11:44
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Unless there's a highway code that mandates cyclists should stay on the road and not on the pavement this should be a matter of straight-up negligence that depends upon a common sense evaluation of the facts. Just to recap, Alchenar's answer was: "it depends on the law in your jurisdiction [which I don't know] and it also depends on the facts of your situation [which I also don't know]." It's the correct answer, imo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^ Mhum. I'm a Ca criminal lawyer, which means I know where you're supposed to be, but not tort law or any civil law at all. Ruggan posted:Can anyone comment on the at-fault cases of pedestrian / bicycle accidents? Specifically where the bicyclist was hospitalized but the pedestrian was not. Is it possible for the bicyclist to sue for damages, and in what situations will they have a strong case? This is in CA, for reference. Did it happen on a sidewalk? A bicycle riding on the street in CA has the same privileges and responsibilities as a motor vehicle. This means the answer is maybe. On a sidewalk might be more complex. CA doesn't explicitly ban sidewalk riding, but many cities do. I don't know how the fault would be determined there, but I would likely assume the bicycle would be completely at fault on a sidewalk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
Bicycle was on a residential street on which there are no crosswalks. The collision did not occur at an intersection. The pedestrian took one step out from behind a large vehicle obscuring both parties visions of one another, presumably to check for traffic before crossing or entering a vehicle. The bicyclist and pedestrian noticed one another and both shouted but the bike was moving too fast to stop. The cycler was likely moving at a speed near the traffic limit, although it was unclear whether or not they were above or below. The only witness was also unaware of the cycler until the collision. I tried to keep the account as devoid of personal opinion as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
Ruggan posted:Bicycle was on a residential street on which there are no crosswalks. The collision did not occur at an intersection. The pedestrian took one step out from behind a large vehicle obscuring both parties visions of one another, presumably to check for traffic before crossing or entering a vehicle. The bicyclist and pedestrian noticed one another and both shouted but the bike was moving too fast to stop. The cycler was likely moving at a speed near the traffic limit, although it was unclear whether or not they were above or below. The only witness was also unaware of the cycler until the collision. This would likely be treated the same as a car-vehicle collision. There might be a case, I dunno. Generally on residential streets (This is a legally defined term that not all 'residential streets" might fall under) in CA the ped has absolute ROW (basically the whole street is a crosswalk), but this does not remove some duty of care from the ped. Someone needs to speak with a civil attorney who knows all the facts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 00:32
|
|
|
Ruggan posted:The cycler was likely moving at a speed near the traffic limit, although it was unclear whether or not they were above or below. That's a pretty fast cyclist or a pretty slow street. What was the limit?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
20 or 25. The cyclist cleared 1.5 car lengths in a fraction of a second between the shouts and impact.2
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
nm posted:This would likely be treated the same as a car-vehicle collision. There might be a case, I dunno. CA is funny. Has negligence per se which means most likely if pedestrian was jaywalking he will be found negligent and thus at some fault for the accident. But CA is also pure comparative negligence. So if bicyclist is found to be negligent then they decide to what degree each contributed to the accident. Negligence analysis on bicyclist is standard. If bicyclist negligent and pedestrian negligent, bicyclist pays for between 1 and 99% of damages depending. Negligence analysis will come down to did bicyclist breach duty of care to pedestrian. If bicyclist acting otherwise lawfully, will depend on if it was even possible for bicyclist to avoid accident. Could/should bicyclist have seen pedestrian? Could/should bicyclist have swerved? Did bicyclist have street-legal brakes on bike? etc. At 20mph you cover 1.5 car lengths in 2/3 of a second, give or take. The minimum reaction time you'll see used in accident reconstruction is generally 3/4 second. I miss you nm. Let's do a beer next time I am in town. edit: Like nm I really don't know this poo poo either, as I am not an ambulance chaser of any sort, nor will you find my smiling mug in the back of the phonebook. I have never seriously uttered the phrase "call now!" into a camera. nm and I are not your lawyer, and we don't wanna be. (Except nm could probably use the money). edit2: Lol. I was writing as though pedestrian was injured. Yeah. The bicyclist can sue for damages. If pedestrian was violating state or local jaywalking ordinance, bicyclist should be able to recover something. Even if not, pedestrian has explicit statutory duty not to step into roadway when a vehicle is so close that pedestrian presents an immediate hazard. srsly fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Feb 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
I found this interesting and somewhat applicable:quote:Under California state law, a pedestrian may generally cross a roadway anywhere along the road without jaywalking. But there are exceptions. Here are the main exceptions: Since the road in question was not between two intersections with adjacent marked crosswalks or controlled by traffic lights, the pedestrian is legally allowed to cross. However, the question then becomes whether or not the pedestrian was negligent in checking for oncoming traffic. Was the pedestrian negligent to step around a sight obscuring obstacle to look for traffic? What if the lights, which would normally be visible during night from a car or a strong LED bike light, were either not on or not reasonably visible?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
Ruggan posted:Was the pedestrian negligent to step around a sight obscuring obstacle to look for traffic? Couldn't that be considered the same as when a car is at a stop sign but has to pull past the line to see around a blind spot? As soon as he crosses, he's considered out there in the intersection if he gets hit. Same as if there was no blind spot and they pull out and get hit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
mrtoodles posted:edit: How the hell did you get that avatar?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
This is in Ontario, Canada. I was charged with a bunch of credit card related offenses a year ago and the charges were withdrawn in court about 3 weeks ago (made a thread about it here if anyone's interested http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3389450). My wife and I always said that after this was over we were going to go on a vacation. Now my worry is, even though the charges were withdrawn, is this going to cause me some problems at the border? I know I should apply for a File Destruction but I haven't even received the paperwork my lawyer says I'll need from her and even then it usually takes 8 months for the file destruction to happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:This is in Ontario, Canada. IANAL. I don't think so; usually the US CBP guy just asks if you've been arrested before. (He might not even ask) If you say yes, but the charges were dropped, you should be fine. Do not lie to that guy. Worst comes to worst, ask the US embassy / consulate for a waiver, but I don't think you should need one. Other countries don't have access to your criminal record, AFAIK. Once again, IANAL. I just go through custom often, sometimes with shady people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
I host a MediaWiki site called Wiktenauer (http://www.wiktenauer.com). The site hosts images, transcriptions and translations of 400-600 year old medieval manuscripts for the purposes of studying historical european martial arts. The main focus of this post is on the images. To see what I mean by 'images', please view http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Paulus_Kal and expand the sections as an example. Most of the images are scans of manuscripts held by US and EU museums. Most of the images are also hosted by the online presences of these museums or have otherwise been circulated freely around the net for years without issue. Issues were raised recently by a part of the community when one of my contributors posted high resolution scans of a manuscript held by the Getty that have not previously been freely available. The scans were cut up and blown up portions of text for the purposes of transcribing, and not the whole image. Scans of manuscripts like this one can be purchased from museums sometimes by private parties for a large sum of money and usually has usage limitations attached to them. The problem is that, as with most pictures or documents that are online, the scans make their way out to first a couple people and then a bunch of people. We have since removed these images until we can work out what the risks are for the current project and for any future projects. I was wondering what kinds of issues I may run into with this. I am a citizen of and live in the US and the host is also US. I know that, at least under US copyright laws, faithful reproductions of public-domain images can not be copyrighted. The terms of use and civil issues are my main concern. I'm honestly not even sure if I provided all the useful information I could, so please just ask if you want to know anything about how we operate, what the manuscripts are and how they're used or anything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
In Phoenix, Arizona. My girlfriend just got fired from her job or possibly abandoned it. That is where we are confused. She was running late (20 minutes) to work for the first time. The desk called her and asked if she was coming and told them she was on her way now. Around five minuets latter the district manager called and said not to bother going in and to never come back. She then asked when she can pick up her last check then and the manager responded with next week as she abandoned her shift/job. This seems a bit odd to me as I thought you had to be no contact for at least three days to abandon a job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 08:02
|
|
|
Hibame posted:In Phoenix, Arizona. IANAL, but I did work as the HR role for a 200+ employee location (company is 10k+ employees) with plenty of temp positions at one point in time. It's in CA (and as I understand, CA labor laws are more strict), but job abandonment only kicks in at 3 missed shifts. In AZ, final pay is within 72 hours if you are fired or by next paycheck if you quit. Job abandonment is considered quitting. That being said, I think your girlfriend might be able to seek damages for unfair labor practices. Once again, IANAL. But there is a lot of case work revolving around terminations for job abandonment, and most cases (and states) have come to the consensus of 3 days being the acceptable time-frame. You might seek out her employee handbook (any paperwork given at hire) to see if she was reasonably notified of the attendance policy. Additionally, if she notified the employer that she was merely late, that seems hardly able to qualify as abandonment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 09:21
|
|
|
Ruggan posted:IANAL, but I did work as the HR role for a 200+ employee location (company is 10k+ employees) with plenty of temp positions at one point in time. It's in CA (and as I understand, CA labor laws are more strict), but job abandonment only kicks in at 3 missed shifts. In AZ, final pay is within 72 hours if you are fired or by next paycheck if you quit. Job abandonment is considered quitting. Thanks for the reassurance! We looked over everything they have ever given to her, most of it was procedures and guidelines for doing work. Only one spot said "do not be late for your shift" in a list of don't such as dress inappropriately or show up drunk. I don't think she is going to go so far as looking for damages as long as she can find a job at one of the other franchises. (It is suspected that all the managers from the different franchises get together and "talk")
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
If that guy has a rep for being a prick she might be fine at another one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
Ruggan posted:IANAL, but I did work as the HR role for a 200+ employee location (company is 10k+ employees) with plenty of temp positions at one point in time. It's in CA (and as I understand, CA labor laws are more strict), but job abandonment only kicks in at 3 missed shifts. In AZ, final pay is within 72 hours if you are fired or by next paycheck if you quit. Job abandonment is considered quitting. IAAL, but I don't know AZ law. I can tell you that in my state, the employer can fire an employee for missing a shift. Unfair labor practices only enter the equation if she was in a union.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 12:07
|
|
|
I run http://isthewiferight.com and I got an email from a guy awhile back stating asking me if I could help him with his website. The guy is trying to "rip off" my site.quote:Hi, I sent him a cease and desist letter that I found online and edited: quote:Dear Sir, He currently has a facebook and a twitter account and is blatantly ripping off my idea. I'm not sure if I'm just "bitching" that someone "stole" my idea but I think that he.. really stole my idea! He's using the same layout, same plugins, same style and even asked me how to make it like mine. Can I really seek any legal action to shut him down?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
I am not sure that this is as open and shut as you seem to believe it is. Did you write the plugins? I think "layout," "style," and "idea" are all a bit too ephemeral to warrant copyright protection.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I am not sure that this is as open and shut as you seem to believe it is. Did you write the plugins? I think "layout," "style," and "idea" are all a bit too ephemeral to warrant copyright protection. I don't think there's a case at all. My family/friends think I should pursue it but I'm thinking it's not something I can stop. If you compare the sites, it's obvious he's ripping off my idea and color scheme, plugin changes. I'm just afraid that there's nothing I can do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
I have a question about a speeding ticket in Florida. I hear about these people: http://www.theticketclinic.com/ pretty often but I don't know what it is exactly they do. Am I basically hiring an attorney and they show up to court for me and keep appealing it if I lose? Along those lines, is this something I can do myself? If you have a court date, is it a guarantee you will see a judge that day or could it go either way? I could take a single day off of work to handle this but any more than that becomes unreasonable and a waste of leave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
Suppin posted:I don't think there's a case at all. My family/friends think I should pursue it but I'm thinking it's not something I can stop. IAAL in Georgia. You probably don't have a case for copyright infringement. That would require actual copying of your actual proprietary content. If there's actual copying going on -- including translation from English to Spanish -- you might have a copyright claim. However, you may have a claim that sounds in (federal) trademark or (more likely) (federal) trade dress. Courts recognize claims for misappropriation of a website's "look and feel" that fall short of copying, and especially in cases where there's a similarity of the content and purpose of the site. There may be state unfair competition laws that also provide you with some remedy. I don't speak or read Spanish, but it looks to me like his site is down and/or suspended. Your C&D may have done its job. Where are you located? My firm does a lot of this sort of IP/internet work, we're very competent and very competitively priced. If his site isn't down for the count, send me a PM and I will send you my contact info if you'd like a free consultation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
IratelyBlank posted:I have a question about a speeding ticket in Florida. I hear about these people: http://www.theticketclinic.com/ pretty often but I don't know what it is exactly they do. Am I basically hiring an attorney and they show up to court for me and keep appealing it if I lose? Typically, it's two days. The first day you show up and plead, if you plead not guilty then they set a trial date. In my jurisdiction you can waive your right to see the judge the first day and fill out a form to plead not guilty, call the courthouse and ask if they have a similar procedure where you live. (It varies from county to county.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
Suppin posted:I don't think there's a case at all. My family/friends think I should pursue it but I'm thinking it's not something I can stop. I don't know anything about the legality of the situation, but as a Spanish speaker it's obvious when he wrote a lot of his copy while looking at your site.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
I just got a call from a debt collection company today and they've stated they're going to be contacting my employer to begin the process of wage garnishment because there is absolutely no way I can pony up 4000 bucks today. My question is basically, can I be fired from my job if this is my second wage garnishment? Also, does wage garnishment show up on your criminal record??
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
Dandy Cat posted:I just got a call from a debt collection company today and they've stated they're going to be contacting my employer to begin the process of wage garnishment because there is absolutely no way I can pony up 4000 bucks today. My question is basically, can I be fired from my job if this is my second wage garnishment? Also, does wage garnishment show up on your criminal record?? I can't answer the employment question, but regarding your actual debt, you should totally read this thread because it sounds like you might have a scummy collector: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3234974 The wage garnishing thing could potentially become a non-issue, depending on whether they actually have the power to do that (they probably don't and would be breaking the law by claiming that they can).
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2011 15:48
|
|
