Martindale-Hubbell (www.martindale.com) was the first entity that rated attorneys, and before the Internet their directory was how attorneys found an attorney in another part of the country.  Martindale-Hubbell rated attorneys by randomly asking other lawyers their opinions of you and your legal abilities, so I have always been proud that my attorney colleagues told Martindale-Hubbell to give me its highest rating when I was still a relatively new attorney.

From my monthly legal newsletter, “You Should Know“-

Be Aware of Safety Issues Before Hailing a Ride To Uber or Not to Uber? Ridesharing Faces Controversy Downloads of the Uber app continue at a brisk pace, ranking #41 on the Apple App Store. Read more. With one tap of a smartphone app, Uber is upending the taxi business and changing the way people around the world commute. The meteoric rise of Uber, and other ridesharing services like Lyft and Sidecar, offer convenience and savings for riders while creating new work opportunities for drivers. But concerns about oversight, safety, pricing and worker rights have made 2014 a bumpy ride for Uber. You should know the risks of ridesharing and your rights (or lack thereof) as a passenger. E-hail for more. >>>

BY THE NUMBERS /

$10 Billion After just five years in business, Uber is expected to hit $10 billion in annual revenues by the end of 2015. Uber’s take is 20 percent after paying drivers, or an estimated $2 billion. 200 Cities Uber is now available in more than 200 cities in 53 countries. But rapid growth has also fueled an anti-Uber backlash throughout the world. “F” Rating Uber recently received an “F” from the Better Business Bureau, stemming from 200 complaints in the past three years due to problems with billing and customer service.

The American Association for Justice provided more details about the hopeful elimination of Medicare set asides for Medicare recipients who bring personal injury claims –

Also, I would like to address further the decision by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to withdraw its proposed rule on future medicals. Earlier this week, I sent you information about a victory involving our regulatory advocacy on the topic of future medicals. I have received a number of follow-up questions from members about what the withdrawal of CMS’s proposed rule on future medicals means.

Many of you have asked questions regarding what impact, if any, the withdrawal of the rule has on the necessity of creating a Medicare set-aside for your clients. AAJ cannot provide specific legal advice; however we can supplement the information we provided you earlier this week.

CMS withdrawing the proposed rule called “Medicare Secondary Payer and Future Medicals” has absolutely no impact on the underlying statutory text—the Medicare Secondary Payer Act; 42 U.S.C § 1395y(b)—that provides the parameters for reimbursing Medicare in Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) situations. To the extent reimbursement was required before the rule was withdrawn, reimbursement is still required. The rule being withdrawn has not altered any obligations in the statute.

Despite this, the withdrawal of the rule is hugely important. As you may know, the rule that Medicare was in the process of promulgating and which was poised to become the law of the land would have required that EVERYONE, both Medicare beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries alike, pay in full for all medical care that might be billed to Medicare in the future without taking into consideration whether or not the individual made a full recovery. More specifically, the rule as drafted by CMS stated:

“If an individual or Medicare beneficiary obtains a ‘settlement’ and has received, reasonably anticipates receiving, or should have reasonably anticipated receiving Medicare covered and otherwise reimbursable items and services after the date of “settlement,” he or she is required to satisfy Medicare’s interest with respect to “future medicals” related to his or her ‘settlement’ using any one of the following options outlined later in this [proposed rule].”

If this rule were implemented, it would have been catastrophic for the vast majority of your clients. It would have significantly reduced their recoveries and made it impossible for many of them to bring claims at all, because there would have been no recovery after Medicare was paid. Eliminating this hugely unfair rule is highly beneficial to you and your clients.

This great news came in an email this afternoon from the American Association for Justice, saying the CMS, which operates Medicare, had decided to not move forward with requiring the proposed set asides for personal injury case settlements, which would have really severely hurt those already injured people even more.

Dear Members,

The Supreme Judicial Court this morning issued a decision in STEVEN M. GLOVSKY vs. ROCHE BROS. SUPERMARKETS, INC. that expanded a citizen’s right to gather nomination signatures on the private property at the door of a supermarket.  Previous SJC decisions had allowed such signature gathering in the common areas of malls, as those were said to be the functional modern equivalent of the downtown.

In this instance the candidate sought to gather signatures at the door into the Westwood Roche Bros. market, but was told by the manager it was not permitted and was asked to leave.  The candidate invoked his rights to equal ballot access under art. 9 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and the SJC agreed.

Justice Duffly, a thoughtful jurist and a wonderful person before whom I did a trial when she was a trial judge, wrote the majority decision, and Justice Cordy dissented, saying the court had gone too far as to infringe private property rights.

Glovsky v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc. (SJC 11434)

Other car dealers had sued Tesla, under a Massachusetts statute designed to prevent car manufacturers from competing against its own brand’s dealerships, to stop Tesla Motors from displaying cars at the Natick Mall, and this afternoon the Supreme Judicial Court said those other dealers did not have the right (legally called “standing”) to try to use that statute to force Tesla to close its showroom.  The language below is from the SJC’s holding –

Conclusion. With a proper understanding of the language, history, and purpose of the statute in mind, we hold that G. L. c. 93B, § 15, does not confer standing on a motor vehicle dealer to maintain an action for violation of G. L. c. 93B, § 4 (c) 24 (10), against a manufacturer with which the dealer is not affiliated. We therefore affirm the Superior Court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ action for lack of standing.

General Motors (GM) knew it would only take 57 cents to make its cars safer, but it chose to put profits over safety. GM was ultimately driven to safety by grieving parents and their attorney, who held GM accountable in the civil justice system.

But if GM had its way, the public would never have known about its deadly ignition switch scandal. For over a decade, GM used court secrecy clauses to hide its wrongdoing in order to keep its dangerous cars on the market and continue to profit while American lives were threatened.

Court secrecy endangers consumers and allows corporations to hide wrongdoing.

CLICK HERE to tell Congress to support the Sunshine in Litigation Act (S.2364 / H.R.4361) to keep corporations from hiding dangerous products and to motivate manufacturers to correct these hazards earlier instead of waiting until more deaths and injuries occur.

Tell Congress Americans have a right to know about hazardous and defective products! CLICK HERE to make your voice heard today!

777 6th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20001 | 202-965-3500