By: Jim Bleeke
BleekeDillonCrandall
A very common issue in emergency room cases, especially code situations, is the timing of when key events occurred. A major challenge for defense attorneys results from the fact that the times recorded by various doctors, nurses and electronic records almost never match up. The times for key events often vary by 2-5 minutes. Plaintiffs’ attorneys either try to select the times that are most favorable to their theory of the case, or use the discrepancies in recorded times to attack the reliability of anything in the chart.
Defense counsel frequently must use witnesses to explain the reality that doctors and nurses often use their individual wrist watches or the clock on the wall to obtain the times they record. Those timepieces commonly do not correspond with computerized times from other monitors attached to the patient. The ability to persuasively explain the realities of the recording of events and their times can be crucial to convincing a jury that the health care provider met the standard of care.
This issue will be discussed in two separate presentations at the upcoming DRI Medical Liability Conference in March 10-11, 2011 at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco. Bradley Freeman, M.D. will provide the medical perspective on charting while rendering life-saving care in a code situation. Tara Trask (a very experienced jury consultant) will use video segments from actual mock jury deliberations to explain how jurors react to these types of issues in medical liability cases.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Fate of Gov. Daniels’ Prison Reform Bill Uncertain
By: Christopher Simpkins
BleekeDillonCrandall
Controlling correctional facility costs is a concern for any state. Typical responses to the problem include releasing prisoners early or avoiding necessary upgrades to infrastructure, just to name a few. Gov. Daniels has proposed a more comprehensive approach to tackling this problem in Indiana by enlisting the help of two of the nations prominent, nonpartisan think tanks, the Pew Center and the Council of State Governments Justice Center. These two think tanks highlighted the fact that Indiana’s prison population has grown at triple the rate of neighboring states over the past eight years, despite a drop in overall crime rate, and helped the Governor formulate a plan to tackle the problem. The centerpiece of Gov. Daniels’ approach is a set of reforms governing sentencing and parole guidelines. Indeed, Gov. Daniels devoted a large percentage of his time and political capital last year to building a consensus behind his plan, which is embodied in Senate Bill 561.
Gov. Daniels recently stated, “Having more dangerous and repeat-offending criminals in prison is the best way to protect Hoosiers, but if our current laws and practices result in nondangerous offenders taking up space at high cost to taxpayers, there may be better ways to manage that.” Gov. Daniels’ proposal is estimated to save taxpayers $1 billion by an overall reduction in the number of people held in prison.
Senate Bill 561 made it out of the Senate’s Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters Committee by a vote of 8-2, but it was stripped of many of the Governor’s essential proposals. “We just don’t accept the idea that because the Department of Correction has a bed problem that we should be releasing serious felons back on the street,” said Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, a member of the Committee. Apparently, the Indiana prosecutors’ lobby convinced the Committee to add a provision ensuring that felons serve at least 85% of their sentences (currently, most offenders only serve half of their sentences due to credit for good behavior). Prosecutors were also successful at stopping an effort to reduce the definition of “drug-free zones” from 1,000 to 200 feet surrounding schools (currently, 53% of the area inside I-465 is classified as “drug-free” and carries enhanced penalties for selling drugs).
Despite the setback, some of Gov. Daniels’ suggestions remain, i.e. theft of less than $750 would no longer be considered a felony (rather, a misdemeanor) and prison time for selling and possessing cocaine and methamphetamine would be shorter and more in line with penalties from neighboring states. Many provisions in the bill aimed at diverting low-level drug offender to treatment and community corrections facilities also remain.
A spokeswoman for Gov. Daniels, Jane Jankowski, recently reminded the press that S.B. 561 could easily change again as both chambers will have numerous opportunities to amend the bill. Thus, there is still hope for Gov. Daniels’ proposal, but whether a bill capable of tackling Indiana’s skyrocketing prison population emerges from the legislature is quite uncertain at this time.
BleekeDillonCrandall
Controlling correctional facility costs is a concern for any state. Typical responses to the problem include releasing prisoners early or avoiding necessary upgrades to infrastructure, just to name a few. Gov. Daniels has proposed a more comprehensive approach to tackling this problem in Indiana by enlisting the help of two of the nations prominent, nonpartisan think tanks, the Pew Center and the Council of State Governments Justice Center. These two think tanks highlighted the fact that Indiana’s prison population has grown at triple the rate of neighboring states over the past eight years, despite a drop in overall crime rate, and helped the Governor formulate a plan to tackle the problem. The centerpiece of Gov. Daniels’ approach is a set of reforms governing sentencing and parole guidelines. Indeed, Gov. Daniels devoted a large percentage of his time and political capital last year to building a consensus behind his plan, which is embodied in Senate Bill 561.
Gov. Daniels recently stated, “Having more dangerous and repeat-offending criminals in prison is the best way to protect Hoosiers, but if our current laws and practices result in nondangerous offenders taking up space at high cost to taxpayers, there may be better ways to manage that.” Gov. Daniels’ proposal is estimated to save taxpayers $1 billion by an overall reduction in the number of people held in prison.
Senate Bill 561 made it out of the Senate’s Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters Committee by a vote of 8-2, but it was stripped of many of the Governor’s essential proposals. “We just don’t accept the idea that because the Department of Correction has a bed problem that we should be releasing serious felons back on the street,” said Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, a member of the Committee. Apparently, the Indiana prosecutors’ lobby convinced the Committee to add a provision ensuring that felons serve at least 85% of their sentences (currently, most offenders only serve half of their sentences due to credit for good behavior). Prosecutors were also successful at stopping an effort to reduce the definition of “drug-free zones” from 1,000 to 200 feet surrounding schools (currently, 53% of the area inside I-465 is classified as “drug-free” and carries enhanced penalties for selling drugs).
Despite the setback, some of Gov. Daniels’ suggestions remain, i.e. theft of less than $750 would no longer be considered a felony (rather, a misdemeanor) and prison time for selling and possessing cocaine and methamphetamine would be shorter and more in line with penalties from neighboring states. Many provisions in the bill aimed at diverting low-level drug offender to treatment and community corrections facilities also remain.
A spokeswoman for Gov. Daniels, Jane Jankowski, recently reminded the press that S.B. 561 could easily change again as both chambers will have numerous opportunities to amend the bill. Thus, there is still hope for Gov. Daniels’ proposal, but whether a bill capable of tackling Indiana’s skyrocketing prison population emerges from the legislature is quite uncertain at this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
