Favorable Medical Review Panel Opinion

I recently received a favorable medical Review Panel Opinion on an unfortunate case involving a slip-and-fall at a hospital resulting in the patient's death. We were able to establish that the nurse's actions (of briefly stepping only a few feet away from the patient while the patient was instructed to use the restroom) were appropriate based on the patient's level of cognitive awareness at the time. Based on the patient's level of cognitive functioning, and awareness, it was unlikely and unforeseeable that the patient would suddenly and unexpectedly stand on her own and fall forward.

Jeb Crandall

Making Clients' Lives Easier

One of our favorite clients has shared their internal service catch-phrase goal to "make our lives easier." At Bleeke, Dillon, Crandall, we strive to make the lives of our clients easier by providing extraordinary service.

We understand that our clients have far more cases to manage than just the cases we are handling in Indiana. We also understand that our clients have reports that must be provided to evaluate risk and make decisions, and that the reports must be done in a timely manner (not when it is convenient for the lawyers to get around to it). Finally, we understand that doctors and nurses or clients going through adoptions or divorces, have many anxieties -- our job is to provide sound, confident and realistic advice that provides peace of mind to our clients.

Our hope is that by truly listening to our client's needs, and then doing everything we can do to meet those needs, we can do our part to "make our clients' lives easier" and better.

What Do Clients Want?

What does the client want from the attorney? For those outside of the legal profession, the answer seems easy: The client wants to win the case. Those of us on the inside know that, at least for civil defense practitioners, the answer is more complicated. While we often have long-term relationships with clients that permit us to assist in risk management and lawsuit prevention, we are more commonly called upon to provide a legal defense after the facts are set. Unlike plaintiff attorneys who have the option of screening their cases for "winnability," civil defense attorneys are assigned the clear winners, the obvious losers, and---most frequently---cases that could go either way, depending on how certain facts and issues are developed.

That is particularly true where a liability insurance carrier is primarily responsible for funding the defense. For obvious business reasons, defense attorneys strive to develop long-term relationships with insurance carriers. Such a relationship would obviously be thwarted if an attorney rejected a case assignment from an insurer because the attorney concluded that the case was a loser!

In my experience, communication is key. Timeliness of response is the most important component of communication Compliance with reporting deadlines is next most important. Giving the client a meaningful, substantive case assessment---one that the attorney can stick to barring genuinely unforeseen developments---is third. Keeping the client and/or client representative generally informed of day-to-day case progress is fourth.

We often focus on winning or losing as the measure of the client's expectations. However, where we keep our clients adequately informed, we can help them make decisions which minimize a true "loss." We cannot win them all, but in the exercise of good communication skills, we can successfully partner with our clients to satisfy their expectations.

Thankful for Awesome Clients!!!

Many of my attorney colleagues shake their head in disbelief when I tell them how blessed our firm is to have THE BEST clients any lawyer could ever have. (Many other lawyers complain that their clients are unappreciative, unreasonable, cheap or just plain difficult). In contrast, I can honestly say that the doctors and nurses we represent are intelligent, caring and very appreciative of our work on their behalf. In addition, the claims professionals who supervise our cases are truly the best of the best. The people who supervise our cases are very smart and hard-working. They provide a second and third set of eyes to help us analyze cases and formulate the best possible defense. Our clients also are practical and use good judgment on which cases to aggressively defend through trial and which ones we should try to resolve via a reasonable settlement prior to trial.

I often tell people that I have the best job any lawyer could have. I represent smart, good people who care a lot about the cases on which we assist them. And our clients truly appreciate us. The feeling is mutual!!!

Defense Research Institute Annual Meeting

I will be traveling this week to the Defense Research Institute Annual Meeting. This will be the second time I have attended the meeting, and the first time I have done so as a full-fledged registration-fee payer (I snuck in last year). Although I have been a DRI member since early in my legal career, my substantive involvement in the organization began in earnest in 2004, when I first attended the DRI Nursing Home/ALF Litigation seminar. Since then, I have attended that seminar each year. Since March of 2005, I have also attended each of DRI's annual Medical Liability seminars. Both the Nursing Home/ALF Litigation seminar and the Medical Liability seminar are planned and presented by DRI's Medical Liability committee, of which I am a member. I had the pleasure of speaking at the Nursing Home/ALF seminar in 2007 and in 2010, and I served as Program Chair for the 2011 and 2012 Nursing Home/ALF seminars. I also served as Program Chair for DRI's 2013 Sexual Torts seminar, which was co-presented by DRI's Medical Liability, Insurance and Employment Law committees. In March 2015, I will be speaking at the 2015 Medical Liability seminar in San Francisco.

Whew! I think that is the first time I have listed my 10 years' worth of DRI seminar activities. While I'm at it I may as well add that I have published two articles in DRI's monthly journal, For The Defense. In the June 2008 issue, I published "Planning for Catastrophic Emergencies: What Can We Learn From Post-Katrina Government Investigations And Litigation?" In the July 2010 issue, I co-authored, with my former partner and good friend Bart McNeil, an article titled, "The National Practitioner Data Bank: How Required Reporting Can Impact Case Resolution."

So what is the point of these observations? As a premise for expressing the three ways I have found DRI involvement over the years personally and professionally gratifying. First, the organization itself is comprised of and substantially run by a large number of talented, motivated volunteer professionals. DRI's leadership are attorneys, almost exclusively involved in the civil defense practice, who donate their time and professional skills to educating and inspiring all civil defense practitioners as we advocate on behalf of defendants in civil actions. These leaders are inspirational to attorneys like me, who enjoy the financial rewards of our work but who also seek to meaningfully ground what we do within the greater context of America's legal justice system.

Second, the organization provides opportunities for business development and networking with colleagues. While involvement in state and local professional organizations is important, in those organizations we are usually working with our competitors. As an international organization, DRI members are multi-jurisdictional. I can (and do) network with colleagues in other parts of the country with clients who have needs in my state. There is no competitive disadvantage to sharing client referrals with such colleagues. Moreover, when we can refer a client with business in another state to a trusted DRI colleague, our own stature with the client is improved.

Third, and most important, are the friendships I have developed through DRI involvement. We can gather, share intelligence, have fellowship and commiserate in equal measure.

So, I am attending the DRI Annual Meeting in San Francisco this week. I am looking forward to seeing old friends whom I only get to see once or twice a year. I am also looking forward to exploring other opportunities to serve the organization. I expect to add even more colleagues to my professional network. I also anticipate making new friends.

Richard Moore

Self Incrimination in a Civil Case

At times we are involved with cases that are intertwined with both the criminal and civil worlds, such as when a car accident causes an injury or death and the driver is charged with a crime (e.g. reckless homicide). During the civil portion of the case, the driver will typically be deposed and questions will be asked that could impact that individual's criminal case, and potentially his or her freedom. While we are all aware of the 5th Amendment's right to refrain from self-incrimination, how does this apply to a civil case? If a person were to invoke his or her 5th Amendment rights in a civil matter (e.g. by refusing to respond to discovery or be deposed), a civil jury can later draw an adverse inference from the witness' refusal to testify. On the flip side, if the person were to respond and waive the 5th Amendment in the civil matter, this information could be used against the person in the criminal case. This obviously puts the individual in a very difficult position. So what is the solution? Although not constitutionally required, a civil trial court may stay a portion of the civil litigation, such as discovery, during the pendency of the criminal matter. However, any such stay must be balanced against a civil plaintiff's right to the administration of justice without delay.

Jury Trial: The Two Key Challenges

Many lawyers who do what I do on a regular basis describe themselves as litigators. We work on civil cases filed in court, conducting formal discovery designed to establish the evidence concerning liability and damages. We assess case value based on that evidence, and in comparison to other cases of similar content. We develop and work a strategy to bring the case to the point of most favorable resolution to our client.

I prefer to consider myself a trial lawyer, as opposed to a litigator. The term "trial lawyer" has been embraced by attorneys who regularly represent individual plaintiffs in injury and death cases. That is not what I do; I am typically on the defense side of such cases. But every lawsuit has at least the potential to go to trial before a judge or a jury. For that reason, my preferred strategy is to develop the case, from start to finish, as if the case will indeed be tried---even if, as the statistics confirm, the vast majority of cases are resolved without a trial, usually through settlement.

Litigators these days (including trial lawyers like me) do not get to go to trial very often. For that reason we are not often called upon to consider what actually happens as a case is being presented to a jury. In my experience there are two key challenges associated with presenting a case to a jury, and mastery of those challenges makes victory more likely.

Remember that the jury does not know the case like the lawyers and parties do. By the time a case gets to trial, the lawyers and litigants have lived with the evidence for a long time, usually years. We have had years to absorb the impact of key evidence, and to understand the unimportance of minor facts. We cannot "unlearn" what we have learned and thought about during the course of the litigation. The jurors, on the other hand, have a relatively short span of time to hear and consider the facts. We may assume that jurors know or understand more about the evidence and inferences that arise from that evidence than they do.

The key challenge for the attorneys is to slow down, reconsider the relative importance and likely impact of the evidence, and to present it to the jury in a compelling fashion. More than once, I have heard jurors say at the close of the case, "We didn't really understand what this case was about until the trial was nearly over," and "We couldn't tell what the attorneys were asking us to do." We cannot ask jurors to put themselves in our clients' shoes. But we can try to put ourselves in the jurors' shoes and understand that the case is new to them. Doing so may provide insight that will help us marshal the evidence effectively towards a win.

The case is won or lost by the quality of the witnesses. Attorneys can do a lot to shape whether a case is won or lost, but ultimately it is the witness testimony that determines the result. This sounds overwhelmingly obvious; and yet, as we pursue written discovery, explore motions, and think about how certain evidence will be admitted, we often overlook the impact of the witness testimony. In my experience, telling the client, "This witness is important, he will not make a very good impression in terms of his appearance or demeanor, but what he will actually say is helpful to our case" is the equivalent of telling the client that the witness will hurt the case.

Along the same lines, we often view witness testimony as primarily a vehicle for getting documents and other exhibits admitted into the record. Completing the record is important, but it should not occupy the primary focus when deciding what witnesses should be called or how the witnesses will be prepared to testify. When we have witnesses who can tell a coherent, consistent story, our chances of victory are maximized.

Are Grandparents Entitled to Notice of a Step-Parent Adoption?

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently addressed two issues of first impression concerning grandparent rights in relation to an adoption. In this regard, the Court in In re the Adoption of B.C.H., considered 1) whether or not grandparents are entitled to notice of an adoption; and 2) whether a grandparent that has served as de facto custodian of a child must consent to his or her adoption. As to the first issue, the Court noted that pursuant to Indiana Code §31-19-9-1, a trial court may only grant a petition to adopt a child who is less than eighteen (18) years of age if written consent has been executed by "each person, agency, or local office having lawful custody of the child whose adoption is being sought." Likewise, Indiana Code § 31-19-2.5-3 provides that notice must be given to a "person whose consent to adoption is required under (I.C.§) 31-19-9-1." Ultimately, the Court held that "lawful custody" is equivalent to "legal custody," that is, court-ordered custody. As such, grandparents are only entitled to notice of an adoption if they have legal custody of the child. Concerning the second issue, the Court held that the consent of a grandparent that has been adjudicated a de facto custodian of a child but does not have legal custody of the child is not required.

Based on this decision, it appears that the consent of a grandparent of a child to an adoption will only be required if he or she has legal, court ordered custody of the child (as opposed to merely informally serving as the child's primary caregiver). Likewise, notice is not required to be served to a grandparent unless they have legal custody of the child.

Shields v. Illinois Department of Corrections (Wexford, etal) (7th Cir, March 12, 2014)-(Hamilton, Posner, Tinder)

The Seventh Circuit's recent Shields decision openly invited plaintiffs to challenge the long-standing Monell decision which requires a Section 1983 plaintiff suing a local government to prove that the violation of his constitutional rights was caused by a government policy, practice or custom, rather than just bad behavior by one or more employees. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) Circuit Judge Hamilton suggested that where private corporations (such as Wexford in the case at issue) are fulfilling the State function of providing healthcare to prisoners the policy underlying the Monell decision may be less persuasive. Judge Hamilton reasoned that Monell probably was designed to protect local governments from automatic liability for wrongs committed by their employees, and suggested that such protections are not needed for private corporations. Judge Hamilton also asserted that,"The specter of massive aggregate liability might spur a private employer to take precautions." The Court implied that Wexford intentionally "diffused responsibility for Shields' medical care so widely", that plaintiff could not identify any particular person responsible for assuring timely and appropriate care.

However, the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Shields overlooks several key points that provide a logical foundation for the continuation of the Monell rule requiring an actual policy, practice or custom of a corporation to establish Section 1983 liability for deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs. Those key points include the following:

1. Section 1983 liability, which includes attorney fees and punitive damages, rests upon a Constitutional violation akin to cruel and unusual punishment, not mere negligence. The conduct must be deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious medical needs and known risk of harm. For liability to be imposed, the actor must have acted, or failed to act, in a way that is close to intentional. Therefore, it is quite logical to require that corporate liability can only arise from a policy, practice or custom actually endorsed by the corporation. Rogue acts by individual employees certainly do not suggest an, "intent" by the corporation to harm the plaintiff.

2. Private corporations already are motivated by respondeat superior negligence liability for the acts of its employees. The risk of corporate liability for medical negligence contradicts Judge Hamilton's cynical assertion that "It is generally cheaper to provide sub-standard care than it is to provide adequate care...(or that)...employees have financial incentives to save money at the expense of inmates' well-being and constitutional rights." (In Shields, the prisoner simply failed to assert a claim for negligence)

Defense counsel in Section 1983 cases need to emphasize the policies supporting the Monell decision if that rule is challenged in future cases.

How To Help Your Mediator

I hear a lot of lawyers complain that it is difficult to find a good mediator. It is true that, like being a successful trial lawyer, a great writer, or a well-respected judge, being a truly effective mediator takes practice and talent. However, even the best mediator is only as good as the parties prepare him or her to be.

Judges expect most if not all civil cases with a reasonable likelihood of going to trial to be mediated. As a result, we in civil practice typically attend many more mediations than trials. Too often, however, for those of us who focus on the defense of civil cases, the temptation is to treat the mediation process in a pro form fashion. We provide the mediator with a basic mediation statement that is heavy on case summary and light on advocacy, and just rely on the mediator to recognize how unreasonable the other side is.

However, cases typically do not get resolved because a mediator tells a party or an attorney that he or she is being unreasonable. Cases get resolved because a mediator tells a party or an attorney that he or she can lose. A prepared mediator can tell a party, "There is a substantial risk that you will lose this case, and here is why." The only way the mediator will know the reasons why the other side can lose is if we tell them those reasons. So, here are a few suggestions for helping your mediator help you:

1. Identify your strong points clearly and unequivocally at or near the start of your confidential mediation statement. The ideal mediation statement should begin along these lines: "We represent the Defendants, and we expect judgment in our favor for the following three reasons:

a. The most credible evidence demonstrates that Defendant #1 followed the
standard of care in connection with the services provided to Plaintiff;

b. The weight of the scientific evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff's
injury was not proximately related to any of the services provided
by Defendant #1; and

c. Defendant #2 is not vicariously liable for Defendant #1's conduct as
a matter of law."

This sort of structure can then form the outline for marshaling the facts and evidence in a way that shows the mediator why your client may very well win the case.

2. Show the mediator actual evidence. We are often reluctant to deliver a confidential mediation statement that includes extensive exhibits, or to bring the entire file to mediation. However, when the parties make competing representations about "the facts" to the mediator without reference to the available evidence, the mediator doesn't know who to believe. If we have provided or have available the actual key testimony or evidence, the mediator can make an independent determination of the likely impact of that evidence.

3. Don't hide the bad facts. To gain the credibility of the mediator, we have to acknowledge bad facts, preferably in the mediation statement. To properly equip the mediator to help us, we have to explain how we plan to deal with those facts.

4. Be prepared. Mediators are likely to have questions about witness credibility, how various items of evidence get admitted, and how much the ongoing litigation and trial will cost. Being ready with answers to such questions will demonstrate to the mediator that you have thought through the case, taken seriously the possibility of trial, and begun to think about how the case will be presented to a jury. This in turn will equip the mediator to communicate to the other parties that you are genuinely prepared to take the case to trial. That internalization tends to make parties more realistic about risk and value.

These suggestions are designed to prepare the mediator to focus the other side on their real, non-abstract risks. A properly prepared mediator can bring your advocacy into caucus with the other parties. An ill-equipped mediator must fall back on focusing in a general fashion on the costs of litigation and the unpredictable jury process. The responsibility of preparing the mediator is ours.

Collaborative Practice Agreements

The act alone of a physician entering into a Collaborative Practice Agreement (CPA) with a Nurse Practitioner does not create a duty owed by the physician to the Nurse Practitioner's patients.

If the physician is not engaged in a physician-patient relationship with the patient (i.e. by not performing any affirmative act with regard to the patient), the physician therefore owes the patient no duty. The terms of the CPA are also critical as far as whether they place any increased liability on the physician for decisions made by the NP, and whether the NP has the independent authority to treat patients as he or she deems fit. As such, a physician does not enter into a physician-patient relationship with each of a NP's patients merely by entering into a CPA with the NP.

Overcoming Fear in Litigation

F-E-A-R is definitely one of the worst four-letter words a trial has to address, especially when defending medical professionals. Many physicians and nurses are terrified at the prospect of being sued by a patient, and possibly losing a case at trial. For doctors and nurses, lawsuits are about much more than money - they attack "who they are", because health care providers are so intricately connected with the service they provide.

At Bleeke, Dillon, Crandall, we try to address our client's fears as early as possible, because none of us do our best when we are afraid. When closely analyzed, clients in medical negligence cases have fears that are not rational, such as: going to jail, losing their home, becoming bankrupt, etc. - none of which are true risks in Indiana medical malpractice cases. Instead, these scary outcomes fall in the category of:

False
Events
Appearing
Real

We ask our clients to focus on what they can control - namely, providing their attorneys with the medical chart and the client's thought process for their decisions. We then ask our clients to stop worrying about things they can not control - and instead let us take care of the rest of the case by preparing the best possible defense.

Pro Se Litigants

In recent weeks, I have been dealing with a number of cases involving pro se litigants. On one hand, that is not particularly uncommon in our firm's practice: We defend many claims against medical professionals in the correctional care setting, and many of those cases are brought by unrepresented plaintiffs. As one might imagine, there is a wide variety of skill level among pro se prisoners who initiate litigation against their prison medical providers. I have found the abilities of some of these plaintiffs rather remarkable.

More recently, I have been handling cases in which a plaintiff has been represented by an attorney who initiated suit and subsequently withdrawn, for various reasons. Such cases create difficulties which are unique and distinct from claims which are handled start to finish by pro se plaintiffs. In any event, my dealings with pro se litigants has prompted the following observations:

1. Attorneys must be just as circumspect, diligent and "by the book" in dealing with pro se litigants as they are with opposing counsel. Perhaps even more so. Informal agreements during litigation are commonplace among counsel, and the duty of professionalism, coupled with the trust that should develop between opposing attorneys if we are doing our jobs right, accommodate such agreements. Informal agreements are much less practicable with a pro se litigant, and observing a lack of formality in dealing with unrepresented parties can extend the litigation and make resolution more difficult.

2. It helps to treat pro se litigants with respect. My impression is that unrepresented parties often expect to be taken advantage of by opposing counsel. Demonstrating some level of respect and understanding, and attempting to patiently and dispassionately explain my client's position to the unrepresented party, has sometimes helped to reduce mistrust and improve communication with him or her.

3. Pro se litigants create big problems for judges. Judges understand that the fact that a plaintiff is unrepresented in a civil action probably does say something about the merits of the claim: If you can't find a single attorney to represent you, that suggests that you don't have a good case. Many years ago, I heard a judge say that she simply would not permit an unrepresented plaintiff to go to a jury trial because the risk of extensive error and the waste of resources for a case that did not even merit an attorney. The catch is that the judges need defense counsel to do smart things to bring the case to a point of resolution well before trial. So, see Number 1 above. We need to engage in discovery and pursue dismissal of claims on the merits as diligently, if not more diligently, than we would in a case with a represented plaintiff. Alternatively, the likelihood of dismissal for failure to prosecute is greater in a case brought by a pro se plaintiff---but only if defense counsel presses for discovery and seeks to move the case along promptly.

Indiana: The Most Pro-Adoption State?

Regardless of which side of the political fence you sit, Governor Pence should be applauded for his pro-adoption policies. It was reported on December 26, 2013 that Governor Pence has proposed that taxpayers benefiting from the federal adoption credit (which was recently made permanent) would also be able to claim an additional credit on their Indiana state tax return. Governor Pence has also recommended that an interim study committee be formed to explore faith-based and community adoption programs and how to better connect the state's adoption services. Governor Pence has said he wants Indiana to become the nation's "most pro-adoption state."

Richard Moore Presides Over 2013 DRI Sexual Torts Seminar

I returned to Indianapolis last Saturday having spent the previous four nights in San Diego, California. Leaving on Tuesday afternoon with snow on the ground to arrive in mostly sunny, 70 degree weather was a nice change.

The reason for my trip was to attend and preside over the 2013 DRI Sexual Torts seminar. The seminar was prepared and presented with three collaborating DRI substantive law committees: Employment Law, Insurance Law, and Medical Liability. My involvement in the latter committee, including two previous turns chairing DRI's annual Nursing Home/ALF Litigation seminar, led to my involvement as Chair of the Sexual Torts seminar. My efforts were greatly enhanced, if not eclipsed, by the two Program Co-Chairs, Jill Stricklin from the Employment Law committee, and Matthew Foy from the Insurance Law committee.

I am not unbiased, but in my view the seminar was quite successful. The topic itself is difficult, and the issues presented in claims involving unwelcome sexual conduct are challenging. In the face of a weighty topic, we had a range of speakers, some of whom brought heft and seriousness to that weight, and others who were able to entertain as much as educate. We were especially entertained with the involvement of well-known criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos, who was all too willing to share candidly from his experience representing well-known---and at times notorious---celebrity clients.

DRI continues to be a source of professional and personal enjoyment for me. I have met a wide network of lawyers from across the country who serve as mentors, colleagues, referral sources, and friends. Several of us at the firm are already looking forward to DRI's Medical Liability seminar in Las Vegas in March.

November is Adoption Month in Indiana

November has long been national adoption month. However, in an effort to highlight the benefits of adoption, Indiana Governor Mike Pence has also declared November adoption month in Indiana. An adoption fair will be held on November 13 at the statehouse where those considering adoption can more learn about the process, including for foster care adoption, private adoption, and post-adoption services. Here's the link: http://www.wishtv.com/news/local/pence-proclaims-november-adoption-month-in-indiana. What a wonderful way to celebrate the benefits of adoption and highlight the existing need in Indiana.

Takes a Little Luck

With the Colts draft of Andrew Luck, the “Peyton Era” officially came to an end. Last week’s defeat of Peyton Manning’s Denver Broncos solidified this even further. Andrew Luck is officially the “new sheriff in town,” and while he can never completely replace #18, Luck has already established himself as a true professional both on and off the field. As only a second year quarterback, Luck has surpassed what many (including Colts fans) thought was possible on the field. More importantly, while off the field, Luck carries himself with a sense of humility and respect for those who came before him and compete against him. Luck does not attempt to make himself bigger than the game, which is often what highly touted athletes do these days. Instead, he simply goes about his business and truly seems to appreciate the opportunity he has been given. As Colts fans, we are extremely “Luck”y to replace one legend with someone who is sure to be another.

Physician Not Responsible for Negligence of Advanced Nurse Practitioner Absent Direct Supervision of Care in Question

Harper v. Hippensteel, (2013 Ind. App. Lexis 462 Sept. 25, 2013)

Plaintiff brought a medical negligence case against an advanced practice nurse and physician who had entered into a collaborative practice agreement for prescriptive authority. The trial court granted summary judgment to the physician before the case was presented to the Medical Review Panel. The trial court concluded that the physician did not owe a duty to the patient, because no physician/patient relationship existed between the physician and the patient. The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed that the fact that the physician never saw the patient, spoke to the patient or conferred with the advanced practice nurse regarding the patient's care established the absence of a physician/patient relationship in this case. The Court of Appeals also concluded that neither the advanced practice nursing statute nor the terms of the collaborative practice agreement created liability for the physician in the absence of facts demonstrating that the physician was actually involved in the treatment and decisions concerning the particular patient. Thus, the Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment in the favor of the physician, leaving the patient with only a claim against the advanced practice nurse.

Indianapolis is Very "Luck-y"

The next three weeks will prominently display Indianapolis' new prize quarterback, Andrew Luck. And on Sunday October 20, the city will also get to welcome back our beloved quarterback, Peyton Manning.

As a season ticket holder from Day 1 of the Colts tenure in Indianapolis in 1984, there is no way to overstate how Peyton Manning transformed the Colts, and our entire city. Peyton lead our team with great success on the field, and total class. (He was joined in that classy approach by Tony Dungy, Jeff Saturday, Gary Brackett, Dwight Freeney, and many others). The entire country came to associate the Colts with Indy as a great team, made up of great people.

Now, after one down year when Peyton was injured, the Colts have a new face of the franchise, Andrew Luck. After many years of struggling as a franchise, Indianapolis has truly been living a dream to get to see two of the best quarterbacks ever (which is where Luck will also rank in 15 years) back to back.

Our city is so blessed and so proud to have had Peyton Manning, and now Andrew Luck, lead our football team - and display the Hoosier values that make Indiana such a great place to live.

2013 DRI Nursing Home/ALF Seminar

I am writing this entry from the Westin Kierland Hotel in Scottsdale, Arizona, where Jim Bleeke, Jeb Crandall and I are attending the 2013 DRI Nursing Home/ALF seminar. This seminar has played a substantial role in shaping the course of my career. I first became involved in long-term care defense in 2004, when I joined a firm that defended hundreds of nursing home cases in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Tennessee. That same year, I first attended the annual DRI nursing home seminar in Boston. I committed then to attending the seminar every year, and to getting involved in committee work and seminar planning.

This year I am attending my tenth seminar, and am proud to have served as a speaker at the seminar in 2007 and 2010; to have invited speakers from the long-term care industry to speak in 2008, 2011, 2012 and this year; and to have served as Program Chair for the seminar in 2011 and 2012.

This seminar is also where I first met my current law partners. I met Jim and Jeb in Chicago in 2006. We developed personal and professional friendships that led to me relocating from Alabama to join the firm in Indianapolis in 2011.

Involvement in DRI and participation in this seminar have led to longstanding professional relationships with colleagues across the country. It also provides us with opportunities to meet with clients to discuss their needs and emerging concerns in defending long-term care cases. And to have fun.