BMHJ Blog: Legal Information, Resources, & News

Opposing Motions to Quash Medical Record Subpoenas As Overly Broad

Brendan Mullarkey, Esquire
December 3rd, 2013
By: Brendan Mullarkey, Esquire

In a Case of Physical and Mental Suffering, a Subpoena Duces Tecum for Medical Records should not be Quashed or Modified as to Length of Years

Recently, there has been a push to limit the scope of medical records subpoenas in personal injury cases. Attorneys rely on the “good cause” balancing test of Va. Code § 32.1-127.1:03(H) to say that a subpoena for medical records from birth to the present is too broad. However, the case law in conjunction with the Virginia Code shows that in a case involving physical and mental suffering, the broad scope of a subpoena duces tecum for medical records is appropriate.

Read more

Va. Code Section 38.2-2206(L) – Irrevocable Offers

Steven W. Bancroft, Esquire
Matthew A. Roberson, Esquire
November 3rd, 2013
By: Steven W. Bancroft, Esquire and Matthew A. Roberson, Esquire

Irrevocable Offers: Does Va. Code Section 38.2-2206(L) have any teeth?

Liability automobile carriers can now shift the costs of litigation to underinsured carriers as a result of a recent statutory change. This change affects both settlement offers and the relationship between liability insurers and underinsured motorist insurers.

Read more

Virginia: Where the Defense of Contributory Negligence is Still Alive and Kicking

October 4th, 2013
By: Michelle Hundley, Esquire

Virginia – Where the Defense of Contributory Negligence is Alive and Kicking

The issue of whether and how Virginia should move from a contributory negligence state to a comparative negligence state remains hotly contested between plaintiff and defense counsel in the Virginia Bar. The Virginia General Assembly last decided the issue of comparative negligence in 1984 as House Bill 107. However, the bill was killed in the senate committee without reaching a floor vote in the Senate. Since that time, the Boyd Graves Conference has addressed the issue on numerous occasions. In 2012, John McGavin, Esq., partner at Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath and Judkins, PC, led the Boyd Graves Committee on this issue. The committee submitted a comprehensive report, however, a consensus was not met. The numerous variables that go into reaching such a consensus are described below.

Read more

The DSM – 5: Will It Impact Litigation?

Melissa H. Katz, Esquire
July 29th, 2013
By: Melissa H. Katz, Esquire

The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) serves as a universal authority for the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders. Recently, a new version (DSM -5)(5th edition) was published; it supersedes DSM-IV-TR. The new publication is significant as it is the first since 1994. Additionally, it is likely that this latest edition will have an impact on litigation.

Read more

Discovery: Protecting the Insured’s Recorded Statement As Material Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation

Martin Schubert, Esquire
May 18th, 2013
By: Martin Schubert, Esquire

Circuit Courts continue to split on the discovery of an insured’s own statement

The scope of discovery in Virginia is dictated by Rule 4:1 of the Rules of Supreme Court. That rule includes the commonly known exceptions of attorney work product and material prepared in anticipation of litigation. That exception continues to lead to different results when a plaintiff seeks the insured’s own statement made to the insured’s insurance carrier.

The scenario is rather simple. At some point after an accident, a potential defendant provides the insurance adjuster with a statement of the insured’s version of the events. Subsequently, a lawsuit is filed and the plaintiff seeks that same statement in discovery.

Read more

Disclaimer

This blog and the information provided has been prepared by Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, P.C. (“BMHJ”) for information purposes only and is not intended nor to be construed as legal advice. This blog may contain the opinions of the members and associates of this firm on various legal issues and is not legal advice. Read More