Tag Archive for: dan-longo

Dan Longo and Bryan Weiss to Speak at PLRB Regional Conferences

Dan L. Longo, partner-in-charge of the firm’s Orange County office and Bryan M. Weiss, co-chair of the firm’s Insurance Law practice group, have been selected to speak at the Property Loss Research Bureau’s (“PLRB”) 2010 Regional Adjusters Conferences.  Mr. Longo’s presentation is “Soft Tissue Injuries” and Mr. Weiss’ presentation is “When Is Independent Counsel Needed?”.

Both Mr. Longo and Mr. Weiss will present at three conferences held in Atlanta, Georgia from June 22-23, 2010 for the eastern region, Columbus, Ohio from September 14-15, 2010 for the central region, and Anaheim, California from November 2-3, 2010 for the western region.

PLRB’s mission is to concern itself with, and encourage productivity and efficiency in, the property and liability loss and claim adjustment processes of members and the industry as a whole; to disseminate information on property and liability issues among members and within the insurance industry; and to promote education and new and beneficial developments within the property and casualty insurance industry.

About Murchison & Cumming, LLP

With a firm history dating to 1930, Murchison & Cumming, LLP is a premier civil litigation firm with five offices in California and Las Vegas, whose attorneys specialize in the defense of domestic and international businesses, insurers and individuals, at trial and on appeal. The Firm’s attorneys also handle employment matters and business transactions. For additional information, please visit our website at www.murchisonlaw.com.

Murchison & Cumming Attorney to Participate in USLAW’s “Fast and Furious” Drills

Dan L. Longo, Partner in Charge of Murchison & Cumming’s Santa Ana office and Co-Chair of the Firm’s Health Law and Professional Liability practice groups, will participate in a five minute drill program of USLaw Network’s Fall 2009 Client Conference at the Westin St. Francis in San Francisco, California on September 25, 2009. Mr. Longo will present the topic, “Elder Abuse: Not As Hard To Prove As You Might Think” during a series entitled “Fast and Furious—The Five Minute Drill” during that day’s program. During this series, presenters will speak for five minutes each on a wide variety of developing legal issues in the professional liability arena to members of USLaw and their client guests.

USLaw Network is a national organization composed of more than 60 independent firms with over 3,500 attorneys. The organization’s client conferences are designed to advance the education of invited client guests and membership through timely, straight-forward presentations, as well as provide networking opportunities.

 

About Murchison & Cumming, LLP

With a firm history dating to 1930, Murchison & Cumming, LLP is a premier civil litigation firm with five offices in California and Las Vegas, whose attorneys specialize in the defense of domestic and international businesses, insurers and individuals, at trial and on appeal. The Firm’s attorneys also handle employment matters and business transactions. For additional information, please visit our website at www.murchisonlaw.com.

Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Defendant Regarding HOA Fees

Dan L. Longo and Michelle A. Hancock have been defending the Bear Creek Master Association and The Avalon Management Group for its assessment and collection of HOA fees, contending that since there were no buildings on their condominium units they did not owe any fees. The Court of Appeals has repeatedly ruled in the Defendants’ favor.

Most recently, a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of The Avalon Management Group (“Avalon”) was granted. Subsequently, the defendant filed a Motion for An Award Fixing Attorneys Fees on behalf of Avalon. Avalon’s Motion was granted, awarding Avalon attorneys fees and costs of over $50,000.00.

Having previously collected over $66,000.00 in attorneys fees from the opposing litigants, this latest ruling from the Court brings the total to over $116,000.00 awarded on behalf of our clients after our continued success in the case.

Successful Motions In Elder Abuse Case

The deceased was a resident of the Windsor Gardens skilled nursing facility on and off during 2001 and the first half of 2002. In early December 2002, he died at an acute care hospital nearly six months after leaving Windsor Gardens. At the time of his death, he was 92 and had experienced numerous serious pre-existing medical conditions.

The Plaintiffs are the decedent’s widow and two of his adult children who sued Windsor Gardens alleging that elder care abuse contributed to his death. Dan L. Longo, lead counsel from Murchison & Cumming, propounded contention interrogatories to the Plaintiffs to determine the exact nature and basis of the allegations against Windsor Gardens. Based on the lack of supporting evidence revealed in the discovery responses, we filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of SNF Management, and a Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication on behalf of Windsor Gardens.

The Court granted the SNF Management Motion for Summary Judgment, freeing it from the case, and awarded costs of suit to SNF Management. The Court dismissed all but one cause of action against Windsor Gardens, resulting in a significant reduction in the damages Plaintiffs can recover, assuming they can meet the burden of proof at trial. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) limits now take effect, capping the possible damages at $250,000. This ruling, affirmed by the Court of Appeal, puts our client in an excellent bargaining position for settlement negotiations.

Motion For Summary Judgment Granted In Medical Malpractice Case

Dan L. Longo and Aileen Rodriguez successfully filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a surgeon accused of a medical malpractice.

Plaintiff underwent hernia repair surgery in December 2000, and again in September 2002. During the second surgery, the surgeon discovered that the first surgery was completed incorrectly. The plaintiff brought a complaint against the surgeon who first performed the hernia surgery for medical negligence and lack of informed consent in September 2003.

The defense moved for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the one year statute of limitations of C.C.P. � 340; and plaintiff had admitted in his response to the Request for Admissions, that he had signed a written consent form, which explained the risks/benefits of the surgery. The defense presented evidence that from May 2001, through July 2002, plaintiff complained to other physicians of chronic pain in the same surgical area since the first surgery, complained that the defendant did “not do a good job” in the surgery; verbally informed his health insurance company and the State of California Bureau of Managed Healthcare that he would not see the defendant again; was diagnosed by subsequent physicians with hernia recurrence; and had even scheduled a second hernia surgery with a different surgeon to treat the same pain in the same area .

The court granted summary judgment, even after the court granted the plaintiff additional time to file opposition. The court held that the plaintiff had a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before September 2002, such that his claim was barred by the one year statute of limitations.

Successful Motion In Elder Abuse Case

Dan L. Longo, Robert S. Ackley and Michelle Hancock recently won a successful motion for summary judgment on an elder abuse case..

Plaintiff was a resident of Windsor Gardens Hawthorne on and off throughout 2001 and 2002. In early December 2002, she died at another skilled nursing facility nearly six months after leaving Windsor Gardens. At the time of her death, plaintiff was 92 and had experienced numerous serious pre-existing medical conditions. .

Plaintiff’s family sued Windsor Gardens alleging elder abuse contributed to her death. The defense propounded contention interrogatories to determine the nature and basis of the contentions against Windsor Gardens. The discovery responses revealed a lack of support for the allegations. Based on these responses, defense filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication on the Elder Abuse, Fraud, and Willful Misconduct causes of action, and to get rid of the Punitive Damages claim. .

The Court granted the defense’s Motion for Summary Adjudication. The Motion resulted in a significant reduction in the damages that plaintiff can recover, assuming that plaintiff can meet the burden of proof at trial. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) limits cap the damages at $250,000. This ruling was also affirmed by the Court of Appeal. This successful motion puts the defense in an excellent bargaining position for settlement negotiations.

Dan Longo Continues History Of M&C Leadership Within ASCDC

Since the inception of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC) in 1960, the attorneys of Murchison & Cumming, LLP have been active participants in the development of the association through elected and volunteer leadership positions. Dan L. Longo, a Senior Partner in the firm’s Orange County office, continues this long-standing tradition with his election to a two year term on the ASCDC Board of Directors. Mr. Longo, a member of ASCDC for 15 years, will also serve on the Seminars and Industry Liaison committees.

The ASCDC is one of the nation’s preeminent regional defense organizations, encompassing a diverse group of more than 2,200 members. M&C attorneys have held key ASCDC leadership positions as elected representatives to the Board of Directors and Chairs of various committees, as well as speakers at seminars and authors of articles for the association newsletter.

Timeline of M&C Leadership in ASCDC:

1960 – Claude Cumming – One of ASCDC Founders (’60)
1968-1970 – H. Velpman – Director
1971 – R. Schreiber – Public Relations Co-Chair
1976 – J. McCaskey – Membership Co-Chair
1975-1977 – J. Baker – Director
1984 – M. Lawler – Court Liaison Co-Chair
1984 – F. Seitz – Public Relations Co-Chair
1986 – G. Genzmer – Benefits Co-Chair
1985 – 1990 – M. Lawler – Director
1991- J. Lawler – Speaker, Annual Meeting
1991 – M. Lawler – Secretary-Treasurer
1992 – M. Lawler – Vice President
1993 – M. Lawler – President-elect
1994 – M. Lawler – President
1995 – M. Lawler – Past President
1994 – 2000 – J. Lawler – Director
2000 – 2001 – D. Longo – Membership Co-Chair
2002 – 2003 – D. Longo – Seminars Co-Chair
2000 – 2004 – E. Farrell – Speaker, Annual Meeting
2004 – D. Longo – Director

Recent Trends in Elder Abuse Litigation

By: Dan L. Longo

Although the California Legislature formally recognized the increased susceptibility of the elderly and dependent adults to be abused or neglected more than 20 years ago, the Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600, et seq, was not fully utilized by the plaintiff’s bar until the late 1990’s. The initial increase in cases filed under the “Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act” was clearly an attempt to circumvent the limitation on general damages under California’s MICRA statute. Recently we have begun to see these claims outside the traditional nursing home arena. In addition, the courts are continuing to expand the reach and effect of the statute.

The major advantage for plaintiffs is that the Act allows recovery for attorneys fees and allows the next of kin to recover pre-death pain and suffering damages that would otherwise be barred under California law, in addition to possible punitive damages. In order to recover the expanded remedies provided in the statute, the plaintiff must establish that the injured party was (1) a California resident; (2) over 65 years old, OR A DEPENDENT ADULT BETWEEN THE AGES OF 18-64; (3) the abuse must be shown to be either neglect, physical abuse or fiduciary/financial abuse; and (4) there must be recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of the abuse. Finally, the allegations must be proven by “clear and convincing evidence.”

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of cases filed on behalf of “dependent adults.” A dependent adult is anyone, ages 18-64, who has physical or mental limitations that prevent the carrying out of normal daily living activities. A dependent adult is further defined as “any person between the ages of 18-64 who is admitted as an inpatient to a 24 hour health facility. Clearly these definitions provide fertile ground for a clever plaintiff’s counsel to expand the pool of potential persons arguably covered by the Act. We can no longer assume that “Elder Abuse” applies only to the elderly nursing home patient.

A few examples of recent cases handled by our office illustrate the expansion of the statute. The first case involves what at first glance is a generic claim for legal malpractice. The plaintiff, a 66 year-old doctor, claimed that he was overcharged by his former lawyers. In addition, the plaintiff claimed remedies under the Act, alleging that the actions of his former lawyers, in over billing him, constituted “financial abuse” under the statute. Although we demurred to the Elder Abuse cause of action, the judge allowed the claim to stand at the pleading stage, notwithstanding the court’s statement that this appeared to be a “garden variety” legal malpractice claim, not elder abuse. Unfortunately, the ruling will make the case more difficult to resolve short of trial because both plaintiff and his counsel continue to have unrealistic aspirations as far as the potential heightened remedies under the statute are concerned.

The second case concerned a 27 year-old woman who voluntarily checked herself into a psychiatric facility. Once there, she continued to carry on a rather active sex life with her boyfriend. Upon becoming pregnant, she sued the facility, claiming, among other things, dependent adult abuse. Through discovery, we were able to show that the claim lacked merit and to dispense with the claim for nuisance value. We have also seen “Elder Abuse” claims in the context of bad faith litigation, landlord tenant disputes and homeowner association claims.

A recent California Appellate Court case, Norman v.Life Care Centers of America 107 Cal.App. 4th 1233 (2003), provided more ammunition to the plaintiff’s bar for prosecution of these claims. In Norman, plaintiff sued individually and as successor in interest for her deceased 87 year-old mother, (the patient). The patient was admitted to the defendant’s skilled nursing facility on January 16, 1999. Her initial fall risk assessment reflected a “moderate” risk for falls, with call alarm, low bed position, and side rails up ordered. Over the next three weeks, the patient attempted to climb out of bed on several occasions and suffered at least four falls. After each fall, additional precautions were taken, ultimately leading to physical restraints as of February 8,1999, after a serious fall which resulted in numerous injuries. On June 4,1999, the patient died while residing in another facility.

Plaintiff sued for elder abuse and wrongful death. After a lengthy trial, the jury found for the defense. On appeal, plaintiff argued that a requested instruction on negligence per se should have been given. The appellate court, citing evidence that the defendants violated Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations regarding patient rights, agreed and sent the case back for retrial. In its ruling, the court stated: “Based on our consideration of the entire record, we conclude that it is reasonably probable plaintiff would have received a more favorable verdict in the absence of the trial court=s error in refusing to instruct on negligence per se.” A petition for review is currently pending with the Supreme court.

The reasons that this ruling is distressing are twofold. First, the opinion assumes that all of the testimony regarding the Department of Health Services investigation is admissible. Previously, defense counsel had fought long and hard to keep evidence of DHS violations out of evidence because of their obvious prejudicial impact. Second, almost every elder abuse case will provide skilled plaintiff’s counsel with a violation of one of the Title 22 regulations, no matter how trivial. Allowing plaintiffs to shift the burden of proof to the defendants via a negligence per se instruction will make obtaining a defense verdict at trial that much more difficult. We will continue to monitor this case closely to see if it is either de-published, or accepted for review.

Homeowners Association Wins Dispute Over HOA Fees

Dan L. Longo, Richard D. Newman and Michelle A. Hancock of the firm’s Orange County office successfully defended a local homeowners association in a law & motion matter. A dispute arose between the Homeowners Association and a homeowner over unpaid HOA dues. The Association filed a foreclosure action against the owner, who then filed a cross-complaint alleging numerous tort theories of liability against the HOA.

After a lengthy discovery process, wherein the judge was forced to appoint a discovery referee because the homeowner objected to each and every request for documents and responses to interrogatories, the referee granted the Association’s motion to compel in its entirety and assessed sanctions of over $3,000 against the homeowner’s attorney. At the same time, the homeowner attempted to file a §170.6 affidavit on the referee, filing several objections and motions and a writ seeking to vacate the proceedings before the referee. The court adopted the referee’s proposed order in full.

The discovery order was in July 2002. The homeowner did not comply but instead filed a motion to vacate and then yet another writ, which were denied in September 2002. Edwards still would not respond to the discovery and refused to pay the sanctions. In the meantime, the court set the matter for trial on May 12, 2003. Last month I filed a motion for terminating or issue sanctions based on their failure to comply with court order. Edwards opposed it by arguing basically the same grounds that he had unsuccessfully argued in the numerous proceedings last year.

Judge Trask in Riverside heard the motion, finding that the homeowner’s failure to comply with the discovery order to be inexcusable and dismissed the cross complaint at trial.

Tips for Defending and Traps to Avoid in Representing Nursing Homes

By: Dan L. Longo

It is no surprise to anyone that Elder Abuse/Nursing Home litigation is on the rise. There are several reasons for the increase in this type of litigation over the last five years. First, largely fueled by the media, there is a public perception that nursing homes do not provide adequate care to their patients. Second, our population in general lives longer and therefore more people are available to become patients in the ever-expanding nursing home industry. Third, the current statutory framework strongly favors plaintiffs in Elder Abuse/Nursing Home litigation. Finally, enterprising and highly capable plaintiff attorneys have seized on the first three points to fuel the explosion in Elder Abuse/Nursing Home litigation. Below are five tips for the defense of nursing home litigation and five traps to avoid.

FIVE TIPS FOR THE DEFENSE

1. ATTACK THE COMPLAINT
Allegations relating to want on and willful misconduct, violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and, of course, punitive damages should be challenged if at all possible. The goal is to limit the available remedies and limit the theories on which plaintiff might proceed.

2. MEET WITH THE FACILITY STAFF EARLY AND OFTEN
It is vitally important to visit the facility as early as possible in the litigation. This allows defense counsel to get the “lay of the land” and also to meet with the staff members who had both direct and indirect responsibility for patient care – administrator, and director of nursing, as well as the charge nurse, certified nursing assistant, dietician, physical therapist, and anyone else who had direct patient contact. An initial meeting will allow counsel to size up witnesses, determine potential “weak links” and identify persons most knowledgeable for deposition at a later date. This initial visit should also be used to obtain all of the pertinent documents such as policy and procedure manuals, and reports related to facility staffing, as well as the patient’s chart.

3. OBTAIN ALL OF THE PATIENT’S MEDICAL RECORDS
Counsel too often focuses on the records from the particular facility being represented. However, especially in elder cases, all of the medical records should be obtained, both prior to entering the facility and after leaving the facility, if any such records exist. These records help track the progression of any ongoing disease processes concerning the patient’s health and will provide needed information for expert testimony. This information may also provide additional parties for inclusion and sharing in any potential exposure.

4. RETAIN EXPERTS EARLY
Consideration should be given to which particular fields will require expert testimony. Generally, experts will be needed in the following areas:

  1. Expert on nursing home administration;
  2. A nurse expert in working in skilled nursing facilities;
  3. Appropriate medical specialists concerning the particular medical issues in question (i.e., cardiologist, urologist, etc.)

Retaining experts early will greatly assist counsel in developing theories of defense and prevent the dreaded scrambling for experts as trial approaches. Further, the experts can assist counsel in formulating discovery requests as the case progresses in order to ensure that the experts have all the information they need to opine on the appropriate issues at trial.

5. USE MEDICAL CAUSATION ISSUES TO YOUR CLIENT’S ADVANTAGE
Plaintiffs’ counsel often focus on the issues of abuse and neglect, believing that those will carry the day for them with the jury. While issues of abuse and neglect are obvious concerns, the issue of medical causation is often one that provides a viable avenue for obtaining a defense verdict. Again, this is an area where expert testimony can be extremely beneficial for the defense especially when dealing with the common nursing home issues of falls and pressure ulcers.

FIVE TRAPS TO AVOID ON THE ROAD TO A SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE

1. AVOID ALLOWING YOUR CLIENTS’ OWN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO SET THE STANDARD OF CARE.
Plaintiffs’ counsel will inevitably seek production of the facility’s policies and procedures manual. While such documents are most likely discoverable, their admission into evidence at trial should be challenged. The standard of care is to be determined by expert testimony, not by whether or not your client met the requirements of its own policies and procedures. It may well be that the policies and procedures set requirements that are far above the actual “standard of care.”

2. AVOID “OVER TASKING” THE FACILITY STAFF.
A typical tactic of plaintiffs’ counsel at depositions is to attempt to take a normal 8 hour working shift and break it up into individual component tasks that the caregiver is to undertake during any particular day. The caregiver obviously tries to be generous in time allocation for such tasks as feeding, bathing, massaging, etc. As such, when taking into account the number of patients to be dealt with, plaintiffs’ counsel can easily take that 8 hour shift and place 12 hours worth of “tasks” within that shift, thereby creating an argument that the staff is overburdened. Careful preparation of the staff for deposition, including an analysis and breakdown of the individual tasks on a daily basis, can prepare the staff member for this slight of hand tactic at a deposition.

3. DO NOT ALLOW A DISGRUNTLED FORMER EMPLOYEE TO AFFECT THE CASE.
At the time of the initial meeting with the administrator, determine if there are any disgruntled former employees who might have any particular information concerning the patient. Ask to see the personnel records of all employees who worked with the patient in order to determine any potential “turncoat” employees before they are able to do any damage. If a disgruntled former employee is identified who may potentially be a problem, attempt to meet with that person early on to see if you can bring him or her back into the fold.

Given the nature of the turnover in the industry, there will always be former employees who had contact with any given patient. Identifying the reason the employee left voluntarily (or was terminated) and dealing with the former employee concerning that issue or issues head on, can go a long way toward ameliorating any concern for damage that the former employee might inflict. Further, if these efforts prove unsuccessful, a potential danger source in the case can at least be identified and dealt with as the case progresses through testimony of other current and former employees.

4. AVOID FIGHTING LOSING BATTLES WITH THE TRIAL JUDGE.
If at all possible, avoid being on the losing side of such things as motions to compel discovery responses, and motions for protective orders. In general, trial courts believe in full and complete disclosure during the discovery process. Admissibility at trial is another matter. Defense counsel is much better served by producing non privileged documents rather than interpreting an objection, which the trial judge will more than likely overrule. Rather, save the battle for the admissibility of that particular document at trial at which time the court will be more predisposed to listening to arguments on admissibility. Appearing unreasonable to the judge regarding discovery motions carries over to the trial and may adversely affect counsel’s ability to win the court over on important pre trial motions.

5. BE OFFENSIVE, NOT DEFENSIVE.
The old saying that the best defense is a good offense was never truer than in defending nursing home claims. Defense counsel must be aggressive from voir dire to closing arguments, stressing the strong points of the case (i.e., there was no abuse, there was no neglect, there was no medical causation). In addition, make sure that any bad evidence in the case, which you know is going to come out anyway, is brought out by you as opposed to plaintiffs’ counsel, thereby showing the jury that defense counsel is going to be upfront regarding all the issues in the case. Trying the case from your toes, and not from your heels, shows confidence in your client, confidence in your case, and confidence in the verdict.