BMHJ Blog: Legal Information, Resources, & News

New Imaging Studies for Brain Injuries: Are They Peer Reviewed or Scientifically Reliable?

January 3rd, 2011
By: Bancroft McGavin Horvath & Judkins

The Virginia Lawyers Weekly had a blog and article posted recently regarding plaintiff’s bar advocating new imaging tests to prove brain injuries. The article quoted John D. McGavin, Esquire on behalf of the defense who advised that these tests should still be challenged and questioned.  He was quoted as follows:

Read more

Medicare Lien: Section 111 – Another Delay in Implementation?

December 21st, 2010
By: Bancroft McGavin Horvath & Judkins

Another delay? Yes. There is now a third delay of Section 111 implementation. Why? Probably because Medicare agents have been flooded with information which is required by Section 111. This has resulted in significant delays. Thus, there has been yet another postponement. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor (MSPRC) has set forth a one year delay in implementation on Section 111 reporting requirements for claims involving liability insurance, retroactive to October 1, 2010 through October 1, 2011.

Read more

Failure to Properly Serve Incarcerated Convict Within One Year of When the Suit Was Filed Results in Dismissal of Lawsuit With Prejudice

Steven W. Bancroft, Esquire
August 23rd, 2010
By: Steven W. Bancroft, Esquire and Wesley D. Allen, Esquire

In a recent wrongful death case, the defendant was an incarcerated convict, the Arlington County Circuit Court dismissed, with prejudice, a $2 million compensatory claim, with an additional punitive damages claim, finding the plaintiff failed to properly serve the incarcerated defendant within one year of when the suit was filed.

This case arose out of an automobile/motorcycle accident with alcohol involved that resulted in the death of the decedent. As a result, the defendant was convicted of a felony and sentenced to a 20-year term, 5 years suspended. The Administrator of the Estate of the decedent filed an initial wrongful death suit against the defendant which it later non-suited. In the initial suit, the defendant was represented by Steven W. Bancroft, who had entered an appearance on his behalf.

Read more

Construction Law and the Statute of Limitations

Steven W. Bancroft, Esquire
Nicholas J. Lawrence, Esquire
June 8th, 2010
By: Steven W. Bancroft, Esquire and Nicholas J. Lawrence, Esquire

Contract documents do not always create a written contract for purposes of the statute of limitations:

In a recent case for breach of contract and negligent destruction of property arising from a fire during a construction project, the Circuit Court for Fairfax County dismissed a $3 million claim because of the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs filed suit almost five years after the cause of action accrued, relying on about fifty pages of letters, written proposals, change orders, and invoices to establish the existence of a “written contract” and avoid the three year statute of limitations for an oral contract. Defendant argued that none of the proposals constituted a final agreement and, while not denying the existence of a contract, argued that the contract had been an oral agreement loosely based on the last written proposal.

Read more

The 2010 Amendment to the Virginia UM/UIM Statute

May 18th, 2010
By: Bancroft McGavin Horvath & Judkins

The Virginia General Assembly added a new section to the Virginia UM/UIM statute, Va. Code Section 38.2-2206 during its most recent session which was designed to create a mechanism to allow liability carriers to shift the costs of the defense to the UIM carrier if certain criteria is met. First, the liability insurer must make an “irrevocable” offer in writing to pay its bodily injury or property damage limits; second, written notice must be given to the UIM carrier; third, to be effective, the UIM carrier who gets the notice must have been served in accordance with the statute; fourth, 60 days after the written notice is provided to the UIM carrier, the liability insurer is relieved of defense costs incurred thereafter, which includes expenses and “reasonable and necessary” attorney’s fees; fifth, the UIM carrier must reimburse the liability insurer for costs to defend to the date the UIM carrier offers its limits, or presumably settles. The amended statute requires that the liability carrier retains the duty to defend. It also states that in the event of either a jury verdict returned in an amount equal to or less than the total liability coverage available for payment or a dispositive ruling dismissing plaintiff’s complaint the new subsection of the statute does not apply. So, how will this new statute impact the insurance industry?

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