Eglet said that the firm has put aside $15 million to prosecute the case…..WOW Only $15 million to fight 9 of the largest Phama companies on the planet!
Eglet has cajones but they will very likely eat him for lunch!
Yep, if there's one thing I've learned it's that Eglet doesn't know what he's doing against the Pharma companies! It's not like he's got any 9 figure judgments under his belt or anything!
Guest
Anonymous
February 22, 2018 4:53 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
Guest
Anonymous
February 22, 2018 4:54 pm
I keep waiting for someone to bring up the Mary Kay Holthus campaign emailers, but I guess I’ll start. Every time I see the slogan “Her only client JUSTICE.” I can’t help but think that the Letizia’s got so much backlash from the extra period in the “JUSTICE. HAS A NAME.” slogan that they thought “Screw it, we won’t use punctuation this time.”
Guest
Anonymous
February 22, 2018 5:06 pm
Definition of chutzpah: after taking in millions in PI suits created by a cabal of non-trial PI referring lawyers, who use their own cabal of over-prescribing /100% surgery recommending with lifelong "pain management" hacks to gin up excessive damages, Eglet goes after the drug companies. Newsflash: if the drug companies forced stricter standards, half your cases would be worth practically nothing, and the "pain management treatment on liens" cottage industry would evaporate overnight.
The vials were too big. That's why people contracted HEP C. Oh, and that damned health insurance company, it was their fault. Desai's best defense was that he didn't have enough insurance or deep enough pockets.
Don't blame Eglet. He's smart to take what this state and its elected judges give him. He's better at playing the game. Most of us wish we were that smart.
Very few of the garden-variety PI cases I see involve heavy opioid prescriptions unless someone actually has spine surgery, which the majority do not. It is all injections these days, and that could be the subject of its own thread here.
Guest
Anonymous
February 22, 2018 5:07 pm
Excellent work Supremes! One Decision from all 7 of you in a week. Bravo! Keep up the lack of work.
11:32– I completely agree with you. It is getting really tiring that our Judiciary has such a pathetic output and that nothing changes. Want these posts to stop? Decrease the backlog of cases. But the fact that 7 justices managed to issue one Decision (and no Opinions) in a week is newsworthy, especially on a day when the State Bar decided to send me its newsletter reminding me that the Supremes will be taking a week on our dime to fly to Chicago to discuss the cases that they have (not timely) decided.
Guest
Anonymous
February 22, 2018 5:10 pm
Irony: Many of the doctors who created the so called "opioid crisis" are the very same doctors who have helped make the big-time injury lawyers what they are here in Las Vegas.
Get 'em coming and going. Genius.
Guest
Anonymous
February 22, 2018 5:23 pm
So, got a ballot recently from "Best Lawyers" (not sure who runs that) and am surprised by the people listed in my areas as I don't know most of them and when I look them up, they're not always active in a particular area. Just curious about views on all that.
Guest
Anonymous
February 22, 2018 5:26 pm
Just read the pleadings in the "Wilson Elser" cases (3 of them) referenced yesterday. Holy Tamoles! I don't know what to say other than….. Wow.
Hiding stuff, failing to disclose witnesses you know about, and playing stupid discovery games, e.g. "Oh, when you asked for the incident report, I didn't realize you meant THAT incident report."
Also – Premises liability cases, email between counsel and adjuster re settlement in case 1, counsel says "Excellent. No one will know about wonderful employee who never actually inspected." Oops! Opposing counsel in Case 2 was added as a recipient in his reply. Damn. I mean, DAMN.
"Hiding stuff, failing to disclose witnesses you know about, and playing stupid discovery games, e.g. "Oh, when you asked for the incident report, I didn't realize you meant THAT incident report."
Should make for an outstanding post on Compelling Discovery.
Somebody's goose is going to be cooked. I have a judge, we are in the middle of the appeal where judge ignored lying witness. Shocked what these judges are doing. Glad Crockett is doing something.
If a lower court judge is pulling or allowing unethical things, an appellate court judge is not going to want to affirm those or overlook those activities. You've got an appeal my friend.
Guest
Anonymous
February 22, 2018 11:00 pm
Wait, 2:31, is your client the defendant or the poor injured plaintiff? If the latter, prepare for a payday. If the former, the Court prefers to judge the cases on the merits.
I cannot out myself. My client is considering appeal.
Guest
Anonymous
February 23, 2018 1:06 am
Concerning the employee suing after being discharged for marijuana usage, hopefully employment attorneys will weigh in on this one.
Assuming there is no employment contract, further assuming that the employee was not dismissed because they were a member of a federally protected class, and further assuming they were not discharged for policy reasons that disallow discharge(such as being gone for extended jury duty, medical leave, reporting the employer for safety violations, etc.), can't an employer in Nevada dismiss someone for pot usage despite the shift in the legality status of it?
If an R.N. has it in his/her system, can't the employer be concerned with letting them treat patients which may in turn expose the employer to liability? Even though booze has been legal for many decades since prohibition, can't it be the same analysis? If a nurse is intoxicated, does not the employer have the right to take serious action?
Simply because there has been a shift in pot's legality status, does the employer need to prove not only that it was in the employee's system, but that it hindered performance?
If so, does that mean that hospitals will never be able to take action to protect their patients from employees who may be impaired, and that the hospitals will be sitting ducks for liability?
I realize that rather than making statements or offering any firm opinions, that I am instead simply throwing out a series of questions. But I would most welcome it if those who have the experience and wisdom to answer them inform me what the low down is.
Also, could it be that matters that involve patient care can be treated with more vigilance than employment wherein the drug usage by the employee causes no real harm to anyone and does not impede performance?
It is unlawful to "[d]ischarge or otherwise discriminate against any employee …because the employee engages in the lawful use in this state of any product outside the premises of the employer during the employee’s nonworking hours, if that use does not adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform his or her job or the safety of other employees." NRS 613.333(1).
It is an open question what "lawful use in this state" means in the context of legal marijuana. Is it use that is lawful under Nevada law? If so, the termination would be unlawful. Is it use that is lawful, while in Nevada? If so, the NSC could go the way of Colorado's in analyzing a similar statute and determine that since marijuana is not lawful federally the statute does not protect users from adverse employment action.
Counseling employers right now is really difficult because this is an open question. My default has been to advise clients who have a compelling need to prohibit marijuana use (such as federal contracts or significant safety issues) that the risk of changing company drug policy is probably worse than the risk of wrongful termination litigation. If you just don't like drugs but don't have a need for a drug-free workplace, it's probably not worth the risk.
This will go to the NSC soon. I tend to think Nevada will go the way of Colorado, especially given the stance gaming regulators have taken.
The other thing here is that there are differing standards for recreational use and medical use. Recreational use is only covered by 613.333, as 5:44 says.
For medical use, the relevant statute is NRS 453A.800(3). It states that workplaces are required to let their employees use medical marijuana when off-the-clock, as long as it doesn't "Pose a threat of harm or danger to persons or property or impose an undue hardship on the employer" or "Prohibit the employee from fulfilling any and all of his or her job responsibilities."
So if the nurse is high at work, then the hospital can (and should!) fire them. But if they're not high at work, I can't imagine how off-the-clock weed use would pose any threats or prohibit the fulfillment of any job responsibilities. So they can't be fired under state law.
The caveat here is that I dunno what kind of requirements CMS puts on hospitals that get Medicare/Medicaid funding. I know that the VA hospital drug tests doctors and nurses (makes sense, they have access to pills), and I could imagine that CMS requires a similar policy for federally-funded private hospitals. And I feel like that could maybe bootstrap into an "undue hardship" justifying firing under state law? But I dunno, I don't practice in that medical field so this second paragraph is all speculation on my part.
I'm thinking the issue is how to determine "if that use does not adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform his or her job or the safety of other employees" under NRS 613.333(1). The example above – if a nurse has MJ in his/her system, what level can be shown to not adversely affect the employer's ability to perform his or her job?
We have limits for alcohol and if someone shows up to work drunk that is a dismissable offense, how does one determine how high is high on MJ?
Eglet runs this town. No corruption here.
Eglet said that the firm has put aside $15 million to prosecute the case…..WOW Only $15 million to fight 9 of the largest Phama companies on the planet!
Eglet has cajones but they will very likely eat him for lunch!
They will. There goes all that slush money.
Yep, if there's one thing I've learned it's that Eglet doesn't know what he's doing against the Pharma companies! It's not like he's got any 9 figure judgments under his belt or anything!
This comment has been removed by the author.
I keep waiting for someone to bring up the Mary Kay Holthus campaign emailers, but I guess I’ll start. Every time I see the slogan “Her only client JUSTICE.” I can’t help but think that the Letizia’s got so much backlash from the extra period in the “JUSTICE. HAS A NAME.” slogan that they thought “Screw it, we won’t use punctuation this time.”
Definition of chutzpah: after taking in millions in PI suits created by a cabal of non-trial PI referring lawyers, who use their own cabal of over-prescribing /100% surgery recommending with lifelong "pain management" hacks to gin up excessive damages, Eglet goes after the drug companies. Newsflash: if the drug companies forced stricter standards, half your cases would be worth practically nothing, and the "pain management treatment on liens" cottage industry would evaporate overnight.
The vials were too big. That's why people contracted HEP C. Oh, and that damned health insurance company, it was their fault. Desai's best defense was that he didn't have enough insurance or deep enough pockets.
Don't blame Eglet. He's smart to take what this state and its elected judges give him. He's better at playing the game. Most of us wish we were that smart.
Very few of the garden-variety PI cases I see involve heavy opioid prescriptions unless someone actually has spine surgery, which the majority do not. It is all injections these days, and that could be the subject of its own thread here.
Excellent work Supremes! One Decision from all 7 of you in a week. Bravo! Keep up the lack of work.
These kinds of posts are getting really tiring.
so is the pathetic output from the judiciary?
1132 is Hardesty. Keep up the criticism. These people work for us.
11:32– I completely agree with you. It is getting really tiring that our Judiciary has such a pathetic output and that nothing changes. Want these posts to stop? Decrease the backlog of cases. But the fact that 7 justices managed to issue one Decision (and no Opinions) in a week is newsworthy, especially on a day when the State Bar decided to send me its newsletter reminding me that the Supremes will be taking a week on our dime to fly to Chicago to discuss the cases that they have (not timely) decided.
Irony: Many of the doctors who created the so called "opioid crisis" are the very same doctors who have helped make the big-time injury lawyers what they are here in Las Vegas.
Get 'em coming and going. Genius.
So, got a ballot recently from "Best Lawyers" (not sure who runs that) and am surprised by the people listed in my areas as I don't know most of them and when I look them up, they're not always active in a particular area. Just curious about views on all that.
Just read the pleadings in the "Wilson Elser" cases (3 of them) referenced yesterday. Holy Tamoles! I don't know what to say other than….. Wow.
link please.
A687655
A691375
A731492
How about “think twice before you hit ‘forward’?”
I can't get the cases to pull up. What's the gist?
Hiding stuff, failing to disclose witnesses you know about, and playing stupid discovery games, e.g. "Oh, when you asked for the incident report, I didn't realize you meant THAT incident report."
Also – Premises liability cases, email between counsel and adjuster re settlement in case 1, counsel says "Excellent. No one will know about wonderful employee who never actually inspected." Oops! Opposing counsel in Case 2 was added as a recipient in his reply. Damn. I mean, DAMN.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I'm too lazy to look them up, but if somebody posted a scribd link or the like, I'm not saying I wouldn't look.
"Hiding stuff, failing to disclose witnesses you know about, and playing stupid discovery games, e.g. "Oh, when you asked for the incident report, I didn't realize you meant THAT incident report."
Should make for an outstanding post on Compelling Discovery.
Does the Supreme give a dann about this stuff, because I have a plethora of this shit in a case I have now. The trial judge condones it.
Yes, they do. Appeal it.
That is a good appeal. Who is the judge? You may have ethics issues. Holy Molly.
I want in on that one. Don't say who the judge is. At all costs, maintain your appeal. There are some ethic issues.
Somebody's goose is going to be cooked. I have a judge, we are in the middle of the appeal where judge ignored lying witness. Shocked what these judges are doing. Glad Crockett is doing something.
If you file the appeal, it will settle or the opposing attorney is a buffoon. Although if they are pulling that then they are a buffoon.
If a lower court judge is pulling or allowing unethical things, an appellate court judge is not going to want to affirm those or overlook those activities. You've got an appeal my friend.
Wait, 2:31, is your client the defendant or the poor injured plaintiff? If the latter, prepare for a payday. If the former, the Court prefers to judge the cases on the merits.
I cannot out myself. My client is considering appeal.
Concerning the employee suing after being discharged for marijuana usage, hopefully employment attorneys will weigh in on this one.
Assuming there is no employment contract, further assuming that the employee was not dismissed because they were a member of a federally protected class, and further assuming they were not discharged for policy reasons that disallow discharge(such as being gone for extended jury duty, medical leave, reporting the employer for safety violations, etc.), can't an employer in Nevada dismiss someone for pot usage despite the shift in the legality status of it?
If an R.N. has it in his/her system, can't the employer be concerned with letting them treat patients which may in turn expose the employer to liability? Even though booze has been legal for many decades since prohibition, can't it be the same analysis? If a nurse is intoxicated, does not the employer have the right to take serious action?
Simply because there has been a shift in pot's legality status, does the employer need to prove not only that it was in the employee's system, but that it hindered performance?
If so, does that mean that hospitals will never be able to take action to protect their patients from employees who may be impaired, and that the hospitals will be sitting ducks for liability?
I realize that rather than making statements or offering any firm opinions, that I am instead simply throwing out a series of questions. But I would most welcome it if those who have the experience and wisdom to answer them inform me what the low down is.
Also, could it be that matters that involve patient care can be treated with more vigilance than employment wherein the drug usage by the employee causes no real harm to anyone and does not impede performance?
It is unlawful to "[d]ischarge or otherwise discriminate against any employee …because the employee engages in the lawful use in this state of any product outside the premises of the employer during the employee’s nonworking hours, if that use does not adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform his or her job or the safety of other employees." NRS 613.333(1).
It is an open question what "lawful use in this state" means in the context of legal marijuana. Is it use that is lawful under Nevada law? If so, the termination would be unlawful. Is it use that is lawful, while in Nevada? If so, the NSC could go the way of Colorado's in analyzing a similar statute and determine that since marijuana is not lawful federally the statute does not protect users from adverse employment action.
Counseling employers right now is really difficult because this is an open question. My default has been to advise clients who have a compelling need to prohibit marijuana use (such as federal contracts or significant safety issues) that the risk of changing company drug policy is probably worse than the risk of wrongful termination litigation. If you just don't like drugs but don't have a need for a drug-free workplace, it's probably not worth the risk.
This will go to the NSC soon. I tend to think Nevada will go the way of Colorado, especially given the stance gaming regulators have taken.
The other thing here is that there are differing standards for recreational use and medical use. Recreational use is only covered by 613.333, as 5:44 says.
For medical use, the relevant statute is NRS 453A.800(3). It states that workplaces are required to let their employees use medical marijuana when off-the-clock, as long as it doesn't "Pose a threat of harm or danger to persons or property or impose an undue hardship on the employer" or "Prohibit the employee from fulfilling any and all of his or her job responsibilities."
So if the nurse is high at work, then the hospital can (and should!) fire them. But if they're not high at work, I can't imagine how off-the-clock weed use would pose any threats or prohibit the fulfillment of any job responsibilities. So they can't be fired under state law.
The caveat here is that I dunno what kind of requirements CMS puts on hospitals that get Medicare/Medicaid funding. I know that the VA hospital drug tests doctors and nurses (makes sense, they have access to pills), and I could imagine that CMS requires a similar policy for federally-funded private hospitals. And I feel like that could maybe bootstrap into an "undue hardship" justifying firing under state law? But I dunno, I don't practice in that medical field so this second paragraph is all speculation on my part.
Edit – "second" paragraph should read "last" paragraph
Paragraph 3 is a big problem. How does any employer define "high at work"? Is there an objective legal definition?
I'm thinking the issue is how to determine "if that use does not adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform his or her job or the safety of other employees" under NRS 613.333(1). The example above – if a nurse has MJ in his/her system, what level can be shown to not adversely affect the employer's ability to perform his or her job?
We have limits for alcohol and if someone shows up to work drunk that is a dismissable offense, how does one determine how high is high on MJ?
Yeah it's basically all a mess and probably will be until we get several cases through the NSC.
Several cases through the NSC? ROFLMAO!!! Target date 2035?