Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell P.L.C. RSS Feed

Informed Consent: What Tennessee Law Requires

Casey Smith - noemail@raineykizer.com — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:00:00 GMT

Notions of consent relating to medical practice have existed for many years. The doctrine of consent in the context of medical practice derived from the principle that patients should have a right to control what happens to their bodies. For over fifty years, patients in Tennessee have been able to sue medical providers who perform treatment without first obtaining adequate consent.

In Tennessee, adequate consent is more than simply having a patient agree to a particular treatment. Informed consent is a legal concept directing that patients have the right to know the potential risks, benefits, and alternatives of proposed medical treatment before providing consent. The information that must be given by the medical provider is based upon the medical specialty, procedure, and community at issue. Essentially, the information that must be given is that which would normally be given by providers in the same medical specialty in the community in which the provider practices or a similar community. For example, a neurologist should disclose that information that other neurologists in the same community or a similar community would normally disclose before initiating the treatment at issue.

A patient in Tennessee may assert two types of consent claims against a medical provider. If treatment is performed without any consent for the particular treatment, then the patient can sue under a theory of medical battery. For example, a medical battery occurs when a surgeon amputates a patient’s left leg after receiving consent to amputate the right leg. If a procedure is performed after consent is provided, but without the provider having made known the potential risks, benefits, and alternatives, then the patient can sue under a lack of informed consent theory. A patient can assert a claim for medical battery or lack of informed consent regardless of whether the procedure or treatment at issue was negligently performed. Claims involving consent are separate from a general medical malpractice claim, which focuses on whether the particular treatment was provided within the applicable standard of care.

According to Tennessee law, consent for medical treatment can be express or implied. Express consent occurs when a patient verbally and/or in writing consents to a particular treatment or procedure. Implied consent occurs when a patient’s actions (even silence) demonstrate that consent is being given. Written consent is best, because it provides visible proof that the patient authorized the treatment. Oral consent may be sufficient; however, it is more difficult to prove should a patient decide to sue. For this reason, any instances of verbal consent should be documented in the patient’s medical chart.

There are exceptions where informed consent is not required (or is implied). For example, consent to treatment is implied in an emergency if it would be impossible or impractical to delay treatment that is necessary to preserve the patient’s life. In such scenario, the medical provider must conform to the customary practice among providers in the same specialty faced with a comparable situation in the same or a similar community. Saving the life of the patient obviously trumps other considerations in an emergency situation.

In light of Tennessee law, medical providers who propose treatment should ensure that patients are provided adequate information. Erring on the side of too much information is better than the alternative. Additionally, providers should ensure that patients who provide consent are competent to do so. This act requires determining whether the patient appears able to understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives proposed, and voluntarily makes the decision. Consent forms should be utilized whenever possible, and they should be specific to the procedure/treatment to be provided. Charting that a patient has consented to the proposed treatment and has been informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives is also highly recommended irrespective of a consent form. Medical providers should also ensure that once informed consent is obtained, they stay within the confines of what was consented to. If circumstances change, then providers should obtain additional informed consent if at all possible.

10-Apr-12 4:00 PM

New Evidence Process Available for Unemployment Benefits Hearings

Casey Smith - noemail@raineykizer.com — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:00:00 GMT

Employers may now have an easier means to defend unemployment benefits claims and prove an employee’s reason for termination. The Tennessee Legislature has recently amended the evidentiary rules for unemployment benefits hearings. Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-304(f), employers can present personnel records and other business records as proof of an employee’s misconduct, even though such records may be hearsay or may not be corroborated by direct witness testimony. To use such records as evidence, 3 conditions must be met:

The employer must be in possession of the records;
The records must be relevant to the claim; and
The records must be accompanied by an affidavit of the records custodian or other qualified person certifying the evidence as a business record.

These conditions should be easy to meet for prudent employers who properly document and retain employment and personnel records.

This amendment benefits employers, as they previously had to provide first-hand knowledge to prove the basis for the employee’s termination (e.g., misconduct) in defending an unemployment claim.

The amendment also gives uniformity and certainty to unemployment hearings procedures. In the past, hearings across the state may have differed in the way the Tennessee Rules of Evidence were applied to allow or exclude hearsay testimony. Consequently, human resource officers might not be allowed to testify about the basis of the employee’s termination if those officers did not determine or administer the discipline first-hand. The new amendment clarifies how personnel and business records are admissible, regardless whether such records are hearsay or corroborated by direct witness testimony.

As well, the amendment eases the employer’s burden in defending unemployment claims. Previously, an employer may have had to present testimony from multiple employees to prove the employee was terminated for misconduct. These other employees may not have been willing or eager to testify. They may no longer be employed or under the employer’s control. They may also have claims or disputes against the employer themselves, posing a risk of potentially harmful testimony for the employer. Now, the employer may submit business records to show the claimant employee’s misconduct. Of course, determining the pros and cons for evidence and witness testimony will still be needed in each case. However, the employer now has another option to defend claims through business records, aside from relying solely on other employees’ testimony.

14-Mar-12 3:00 PM

Mediation of Employment Matters: Thoughts to Ponder

Gregory Jordan - noemail@raineykizer.com — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:00:00 GMT

When is your employment law case most likely to settle in mediation? An old adage says there are two sides to every argument. It is never more true than in employment-related matters. So, the initial question is not about demonstrating a winning set of facts or an irrefutable legal argument. The question is about timing and perspective.

Have the parties exchanged sufficient discovery so that the pertinent facts are all known? Mediation is less effective if there are unanswered questions involving wages, benefits, witnesses, and other important facts.
Have the parties filed dispositive motions or motions to add parties? Has the trial court decided these motions? Pending rulings on dispositive motions create expectations of future success that can seriously damage the parties' willingness to compromise and avoid risks that a successful mediation can bring. We are always prejudiced in favor of our positions. It is usually more effective to get such motions behind you before settlement negotiations can be fruitful.
How much more litigation expenses do the parties expect to incur? A healthy tension exists between conducting initial discovery to determine the issues and conducting final preparations to be ready for trial. A good time to come to the mediation table is before the costs have peaked. By then, parties may not have become entrenched in their positions, an added advantage for negotiations.
Is the case just about money or are there ongoing relationships that can be preserved, or at least salvaged? Mending or terminating ongoing relationships can be a non-monetary incentive in favor of settlement. In that case, mediation may work better earlier in the process than later.

An obstacle to fruitful negotiations is created by the party who thinks he or she must hold certain matters as a secret throughout the negotiating process. He or she refuses to let even the mediator know. While this can be an effective strategy in litigation, it is deadly to the candid and good faith conversations necessary to a mediated settlement. Mediation works when you are ready to settle. It does not work if the motivation is to seek a litigation advantage or to exact punishment.

Mediation often should begin with discussion that any preconceived limits the parties have placed on the process should be abandoned. However, few participants are ready to accept that they may be able to learn something from the other side. The jury or the judge will see the other side; you might as well see it too. Be ready to learn something new, and be open to another perspective.

Mediation has arrived as a valuable tool in saving money and human emotions in employment litigation. Each case is unique, and timing and perspective can make all the difference. Give it a chance, and let the mediation process work for you.

About the author: Gregory D. Jordan

Greg Jordan is certified by the Tennessee Supreme Court as a Rule 31 General Civil and Family Law mediator. He has significant experience mediating cases involving employment law, contract disputes, and personal injury. As well, he has 25 years of experience representing employers in the areas of workers’ compensation and employment law in the Tennessee Supreme Court and the United States District Court for both Western and Middle Districts in Tennessee. He also has served as an adjunct professor of Business Law and Business Ethics at Union University. Jordan is a member and Group Leader of RKRB’s Employment Law Practice Group.

14-Mar-12 3:00 PM

NLRA Posting

Latosha Dexter - noemail@raineykizer.com — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:00:00 GMT

Initially scheduled for implementation in November of 2011, the NLRA posting requirement was postponed until January 31, 2012, due to a number of legal challenges. Now at the request of the federal court in Washington, DC, the NLRB has agreed to further postpone the effective date. The new effective date for the NLRA posting requirement is now April 30, 2012.

As of April 30, 2012, all employers subject to the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), which essentially includes all employers other than public-sector employers, must post a mandatory notice that informs employees of their rights under the NLRA. This notice informs employees of the following: (1) the rights employees have under the NLRA, such as the right to organize or join a union, the right to participate in collective bargaining, the right to take collective action with other employees, and the right not to join a union; (2) employer actions that are illegal under the NLRA; (3) union actions that are illegal under the NLRA; and (4) how to contact the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) to report a union or employer’s violation. Employers may obtain a free copy of the notice on the NLRB’s website or by contacting an NLRB regional office.[1]

Because of the looming legal challenges, RKRB will keep close watch on further developments and take steps to keep you informed.

18-Jan-12 11:00 AM

TENNESSEE LAWFUL EMPLOYMENT ACT

Latosha Dexter - noemail@raineykizer.com — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:00:00 GMT

On June 7, 2011, Governor Haslam signed into law the Tennessee Lawful Employment Act (“Act”). This Act requires all employers in the state, both public and private, to provide evidence that they are only hiring and employing persons who are legally in the country. Employers can satisfy the requirements of the Act by performing one of the following:

Enrolling in the E-Verify program and verifying the employment eligibility of all newly hired employees through E-Verify; or
Request from all newly hired employees a copy of one of the following documents:

A valid Tennessee’s driver’s license or photo identification;
A valid driver’s license or photo identification from another state whose license requirements are at least as strict as those in Tennessee;
A birth certificate issued by a U.S. state, jurisdiction, or territory;
A U.S. government-issued birth certificate;
A valid, unexpired U.S. passport;
A U.S. certificate of birth abroad;
A report of birth abroad of a citizen of the U.S.;
A certificate of citizenship;
A certificate of naturalization;
A U.S. citizen identification card; or
Any valid immigrant registration documentation, recognized by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, that verifies the employee’s legal immigration status.

The Act also applies to independent contractors or other non-employee individuals that an employer pays directly for labor or services. But for these individuals, an employer cannot use E-Verify and instead must request valid documentation from the list above.

Even though the Act allows an employer to choose between using E-Verify or simply requesting documentation, it would be wise for employers to choose E-Verify. Under the Act, if an employer happens to hire an illegal immigrant that E-Verify cleared, then the employer will not be liable under the Act.[1] But an employer is not entitled to this defense if it relies on documentation submitted by the employee. Instead, the employer will have to prove its innocence with other evidence.

These employment verification procedures apply to the following groups of employers on the following dates:

January 1, 2012—governmental entities and private employers with 500 or more employees;
July 1, 2012—private employers with 200 to 499 employees;
January 1, 2013—private employers with 6 to 199 employees.

The Act is unclear as to whether an employer should count only the employees it has that are located in Tennessee or the total number of its employees, regardless of location. But because the law will apply to all employers with 6 or more employees by January 1, 2013, employers with a large number of employees outside of Tennessee should err on the side of caution and implement the Act in accordance with the appropriate phase-in date.

The Act mandates that employers maintain a record of the E-Verify report for 3 years after the date of the employee’s hire or for 1 year after the employee’s employment is terminated, whichever is later. Employers must maintain a copy of any documentation received for 3 years after the documentation is received or for 1 year after the employee’s employment is terminated, whichever is later.

An employer found to be in violation of the Act is subject to the following penalties: (1) a fine of $500 for a first violation, $1,000 for a second violation, and $2,500 for a third or subsequent violation;[2](2) an additional $500, $1,000, or $2,500, depending on whether it is the first, second, or third violation, for each employee not verified under the Act. After a fine is assessed, an employer then has 60 days to submit evidence to the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development showing that it has remedied the violation and is in compliance with the Act. If the employer does not comply within 60 days, then the employer’s business license will be suspended until the employer remedies the violation. Finally, the Department of Labor and Workforce Development will publicly post the name of any employer found to be in violation of the Act, along with a description of the employer’s violation, on the Department’s website.

[1]. This absolute defense only applies to the Tennessee Lawful Employment Act. It is not an absolute defense to federal immigration laws.

[2]. A warning, instead of a fine, will be issued for a first violation if the Department of Labor and Workforce Development finds that the violation was not a knowing violation and the employer complies with the remedial action the Department requests within 60 days of receiving notice of the violation.

9-Jan-12 2:00 PM

CLEAR AND CONVINCING DRUG TESTS PRESUMPTION

Greg Jordan - noemail@raineykizer.com — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:00:00 GMT

On July 1, 2011, Tennessee's workers' compensation drug-free workplace presumption was amended, strengthening the authority of drug testing when denying the compensability of a workers' compensation claim.

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act creates a presumption that drugs or alcohol use is the proximate cause of the injury if the injured employee has, at the time of the injury, blood alcohol concentration levels or a positive confirmed drug test as prescribed in the statute. The law originally provided that this presumption could be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence that the drug or alcohol was not the proximate cause of the injury. On July 1, 2011, an amendment took effect, changing the language requiring "clear and convincing evidence" to rebut the presumption that the intoxication or drug was not the proximate cause of the injury.

What does this mean for Tennessee employers? In other areas of the law where the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof is required, the standard "eliminates any serious or substantial doubt concerning the correctness of the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence." See O'Danielv. Messier, 905 S.W.2 182, 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). Clear and convincing evidence "produce[s] in the fact finder's mind a firm belief or conviction with regard to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." Id. See also Rettenbach Eng'g Co. v. Gen. Realty, Ltd., 707 S.W.2d 524, 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).

For example, in Teter v. Republic Parking System, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 330, 341 (Tenn. 2005), the Supreme Court of Tennessee compared and contrasted the clear and convincing evidence standard with the preponderance of the evidence standard. Id. at 333. The case involved a breach of contract suit against a former employer for severance pay allegedly owed under an employment contract. The employer had found after the employee's termination that he had been guilty of gross misconduct while on the job. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff employee, stating that there was no "clear and convincing evidence" that the employer would have fired him had it known of the alleged misconduct before his termination. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court remanded the case for trial, holding that after-acquired evidence of employee misconduct need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. In applying the lower standard, the Supreme Court determined there was an issue of material fact as to whether the company would have fired Teter. The Court stated, "Clear and convincing evidence means evidence in which there is no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions to be shown." Id. at 341. The Court found no reason to implement a higher standard of evidence which was only implemented to "promote important public policy and preserve prior judicial orders." Id. at 341.

Moreover, the application of the standard in Walton v. Young, 950 S.W.2d at 960 (Tenn. 1997), involved a blood test confirming that plaintiff, an alleged heir of a decedent in an estate matter, was not the biological child of the decedent. Even though testimony was brought forth to the extent that the plaintiff was told by her mother and her mother's husband, who had been her assumed father, that the decedent was her biological father, the Court found that the clear and convincing evidence required for proof of the biological relationship had not been reached in light of the blood test.

It is clear from this analysis, and the analysis in additional cases where the standard is discussed, that the use of the clear and convincing standard to rebut the authority of a drug test in the context of the presumption in workers' compensation law will require more than the employee bringing forth a few witnesses to say that he was not impaired, or other testimonial evidence to that effect.

The strength of the standard will, as contemplated in Teter, be important in the event of an appeal by an employee whose workers' compensation claims were denied on the authority of this statute, since the clear and convincing standard gives greater weight and strength to the trial court's ultimate decision.

24-Aug-11 11:00 AM

Revisions to Solid Waste Disposal Act

Latosha Dexter - noemail@raineykizer.com — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:15:00 GMT

Effective May 25, 2011, the legislature amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act to impose additional requirements on landfill operators. The amendments require any proposed landfill owner to provide notice to persons owning property within a three-mile radius of such landfill at least 15 days in advance of any public hearing scheduled regarding applications for the construction of the proposed landfill by having signs erected on all roads leading directly to the proposed landfill site.

24-Aug-11 10:15 AM

LET’S MAKE IT EASIER: ADA Amendments Act and Regulations

Latosha Dexter - noemail@raineykizer.com — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:00:00 GMT

Recently, while preparing materials for a presentation on the ADA Amendments Act and the newly released regulations, I told a colleague that I could merely walk in the room, say “everyone is disabled” and then walk out. That would be the extent of my presentation because as the regulations clearly state: The purpose of the amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act was to make it easier for employees to come within the Act’s protection. Although the regulations retain the basic definition of disability, it substantially expands the terms necessary to making a determination of whether a disability exists. The final regulations provided nine rules of construction to apply in determining whether a substantial limitation exists:

Substantially limits" is to be construed broadly, to the maximum extent allowable under the law.
"Substantially limits" does not need to prevent or severely or significantly restrict a major life activity; rather, an impairment is a disability if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform major life activities as compared to "most people" in the general population.
The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity requires individualized assessment; however, such analysis need not and, in fact, should not be extensive.
The individualized assessment to determine if someone is substantially limited should require a degree of functional limitation that is "lower" than the standard prior to the enactment of the ADAAA.
The analysis of whether an individual's performance of a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population usually will not require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis.
With the exception of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses, the determination of whether an impairment "substantially limits" a major life activity should be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, such as medication and assistive devices.
An impairment that is episodic or in remission meets the definition of disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.
An impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not substantially limit other major life activities in order to be considered substantially limiting.
The effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting. Therefore, even conditions of short duration (e.g., a few months) can meet this definition.

In addition to the expansion of “substantially limits” the regulations also expanded the term “major life activity” to include activities such as interacting with others. The ADA statutory amendments previously added “major bodily functions” to the list and the regulations address it further. “Regarded as” has also been broadened and requires no showing of substantial limitation by the employee. The final regulations and Interpretive Guidance make clear that there is no duty to accommodate based on an individual being “regarded as” an individual with a disability. However, the “regarded as” prong is likely to become the main theory for employees as the regulations emphasize that it is the primary method for bringing a claim when an accommodation request is not at issue.

So what does this mean for employers? Basically what I said at the beginning of this article: everyone is disabled. An employer should no longer focus on whether a disability exists because it likely does. The focus should now be on whether the disability needs to be reasonably accommodated and/or whether an employment action is being administered fairly. Employers should review their processes and ensure that they understand how to engage in the interactive process. An employer should have a policy or procedure in place to notify employees of how to make accommodation requests. Human resource professionals and line managers should be trained to recognize accommodation requests and how to respond.

24-Aug-11 10:00 AM

Equal Access to Intrastate Commerce Act

Latosha Dexter - noemail@raineykizer.com — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:00:00 GMT

The state legislature has recently imposed limitations on the authority of cities and counties to adopt their own ordinances or resolutions extending nondiscrimination requirements to groups not currently protected by state law. Currently, the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”) prohibits discrimination against individuals based on their “race, creed, color, religion, sex, age or national origin.” With the passage of the Equal Access to Intrastate Commerce Act, cities and counties are now prohibited from extending nondiscrimination protections or requirements beyond the groups currently protected by the THRA. The prohibition does not apply with respect to employees of a local government. The law, effective May 31, 2011, applies retroactively and repeals an ordinance passed by the Nashville and Davidson Metropolitan Council that prohibited companies doing business with the local government from discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The state legislature also took the opportunity to clarify the definition of “sex” under state law by affirmatively stating that it refers “only to the designation of an individual person as male or female as indicated on the individual’s birth certificate.”

24-Aug-11 10:00 AM

Tenured Teacher Hearings

Latosha Dexter - noemail@raineykizer.com — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:00:00 GMT

As part of Tennessee First to the Top Act of 2010, significant changes were made to the way hearings on tenured teacher disciplinary issues are held. Although a teacher still retains the right to request a hearing after discipline has been issued, the way the hearing is conducted has changed. Previously, a tenured teacher could request a hearing to the board. Now the teacher has 30 days to request a full and complete hearing before an impartial hearing officer selected by the board. This means that boards of education must now select an individual to conduct the hearing who 1) has no history of employment with the board or director of schools, 2) has no relationship with any board member; and 3) no relationship with the teacher or the teacher’s representatives. The legislation also contains specific guidance as to how the pre-hearing and hearing process should occur. For non-tenured teachers, an impartial hearing officer is also required although with less strictures on the hearing process. In light of this new legislation, boards need to review their policies to ensure that they are in compliance. Boards should also consider pre-approving a panel of impartial hearing officers to be used so that board approval is not required for every teacher disciplinary matter. The attorneys at Rainey, Kizer are also available to assist as impartial hearing officers when the need arises.

24-Aug-11 10:00 AM

Rainey Kizer Partner Named Professor of Business Law and Ethics

noemail@raineykizer.com — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:00:00 GMT

Jackson, TN (May 14, 2012) - Gregory Jordan is resigning as a partner in the Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell P.L.C. (Rainey Kizer) Law Firm to join the business faculty of Union University as a Professor of Business Law and Business Ethics, beginning this Fall semester. At Rainey Kizer, Jordan serves as group leader of the firm's Employment Law Practice Group and will continue his Rainey Kiser affiliation by serving in an Of Counsel capacity beginning on July 1. We're really pleased to have Greg join us on a full-time basis, said Professor Keith Absher, Dean of the McAfee School of Business Administration. He's been part of the Union family for a long time, serving as an adjunct professor of business. The students love having him as their professor and he does a great job in the classroom. I have always wanted to teach and this opportunity to join a great faculty came along at the right time in my life and career, Jordan said. I have enjoyed...

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Expands Universe of Employees Protected from Retaliation Following Filing of an EEOC Complaint, Rainey Kizer's Dexter Says

noemail@raineykizer.com — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:00:00 GMT

Jackson, TN (April 24, 2012) - The Supreme Court decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (2011), creates a new, but ambiguously defined, group of employees protected from retaliation following the filing of a complaint with the EEOC, according to V. Latosha Dexter, SPHR, an employment law attorney at Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C. (Rainey Kizer). The North American Stainless case lays a mine field for employers, Dexter commented. It allows third-party claims for retaliation by employees having a significant relationship with a complainant, but fails to specify what constitutes such a relationship. The opinion made clear that a fiancee or spouse has Title VII retaliation protection, but failed to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful. The 2006 Supreme Court decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway v. White greatly expanded the scope of actions potentially...

While The Individual Mandate Takes The Spotlight, Other ACA Provisions Will Have A Greater Impact On Healthcare Providers Says Rainey Kizer's Youngberg

noemail@raineykizer.com — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:00:00 GMT

Memphis, TN (April 10, 2011) -Although current public attention is focused on the individual mandate issue now under U.S. Supreme Court review, other provisions of the Affordable Care Act will have a greater impact on health care providers, according to Angela Youngberg, Leader of the Healthcare Practice Group at Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell PLC (Rainey Kizer). Youngberg's remarks were made at a health care reform seminar hosted by The Memphis Daily News. The Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, was the focus of the seminar. Youngberg is chair-elect of the Health Law Section of the Tennessee Bar Association and has been selected by her peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America in Health Care Law. According to Youngberg, if the individual mandate stands, it would provide some assistance to hospitals in reducing what is now uncompensated care, especially for those non-profit and public hospitals that treat patients whether the...

Rainey Kizer Spring Employment Law Seminar Announced

noemail@raineykizer.com — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:00:00 GMT

Mark your calendar for our Spring Employment Law Seminar! The seminar is set for Wednesday, May 2, 2012. This event, presented in conjunction with the West Tennessee Society for Human Resource Management, will be held at the Carl Grant Center at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee. Topics for discussion will include:

Performance Management
Case Studies on Harassment
Social Media

Contact Casey Smith at csmith@raineykizer.com for registration information.

Rainey Kizer Law Firm Selects Cleek, Crider, Stewart, and Thompson As New Partners

noemail@raineykizer.com — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:00:00 GMT

Attorneys Ashley Cleek, Adam Crider, Jonathan Stewart, and J.V. Thompson have been selected as partners in Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell PLC (Rainey Kizer).

Cleek is a graduate of the University of Tennessee College of Law. He served as senior editor of the Tennessee Law Review and received Certificates of Extraordinary Achievement in both Criminal Law and Workers’ Compensation. He is a member of the firm’s Malpractice Defense Group.

Crider, also a University of Tennessee College of Law graduate, is a member of the Rainey Kizer Business Law Group. He is an associate member of the American Inns of Court, Howell Edmunds Jackson Chapter.

Stewart earned his law degree, with honors, at the University of Memphis. While in law school, he was a member of the Tennessee Journal of Practice and Procedure. He is a past president of the Jackson-Madison County Bar Association, Young Lawyers Division, an associate member of the American Inns of Court, Howell Edmunds Jackson Chapter, a member of the Defense Research Institute, and a Tennessee Defense Lawyers Association member. Stewart is a member of the firm’s Tort and Insurance Group.

Another University of Memphis graduate, Thompson served on the editorial board of the University of Memphis Law Review and was National Chairman of the National Conference of Law Review. A member of the firm’s Tort and Insurance and Employment Law and Civil Rights Practice Groups, he is an associate member of the American Inns of Court, Howell Edmunds Jackson Chapter.

Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds That Plaintiff's Status as a Minor Does Not Suspend Statute of Repose in Construction Litigation

noemail@raineykizer.com — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:00:00 GMT

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently confirmed that a Plaintiff's status as a minor does not toll the Statute of Repose in construction cases filed in Tennessee. While the Tennessee Supreme Court had previously determined that a Plaintiff's minority did not suspend a similar Statute of Repose applicable to medical malpractice actions, the Court of Appeals has now concluded that only a limited time period exists to bring a lawsuit arising out of an alleged injury following substantial completion of an improvement to real property, regardless of the age of the injured party. Attorneys Bradford D. Box and Nathan E. Shelby of Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell PLC (Rainey Kizer) represented a defendant contractor in the case at both the trial and appellate levels. Attorneys Box and Shelby, who represent litigants in a broad range of suits throughout Tennessee, obtained summary judgment in favor of their contractor at the trial level, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed...

Rainey Kizer's Attorneys to Address Tennessee Bar Education Program

noemail@raineykizer.com — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:00:00 GMT

Jackson attorneys Rusty Reviere and Angela Youngberg, partners at Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, PLC (Rainey Kizer), will be featured speakers at the Tennessee Bar Association’s Continuing Legal Education Program held in Snowmass, CO.

Reviere will open the conference with a presentation on jury selection and opening statements. Youngberg is scheduled to speak on the topic “What’s Hot in Healthcare Law?”

Reviere heads the firm’s Tort and Insurance Practice Group. He has been selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® in the specialty of Insurance Law. He is certified as a Civil Trial Specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. A member of the Memphis Bar Foundation, Reviere recently was elected counselor for the Howell Edmunds Jackson Inn of Court Chapter. He is a past president of the University of Memphis Law School Alumni Association.

Youngberg also has earned inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America®in her specialty of Healthcare Law. She is Chair-elect of the Health Law Section of the Tennessee Bar Association, a member of the American Health Lawyers Association, and a member of the Howell Edmunds Jackson Inn of Court Chapter. Youngberg writes and lectures frequently on healthcare law topics. She serves as a director of the Jackson Area Chamber of Commerce and the Exchange Club Carl Perkins Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse.

Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, PLC is AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell and was named a Go-To Firm® by Fortune 500 general counsels. The full-service law firm with offices in Jackson and Memphis represents local, state, and national clients before state and federal courts and regulatory agencies throughout the Mid-South. For more information visit www.raineykizer.com.

City of Humboldt Wins Summary Judgment in Sex Discrimination Law Suit

noemail@raineykizer.com — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:00:00 GMT

Humboldt, TN (December 6, 2011) – A discrimination suit against the City of Humboldt, TN, brought by a former police officer, was dismissed in Gibson County Circuit Court. Judge Clayburn Peeples granted the city’s motion for summary judgment. The city was represented by John Burleson and Geoffrey Lindley of Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, PLC (Rainey Kizer).

Melody Pierce (formerly know as Melody Pierce Stewart), the former officer, alleged that the city fired her because she was pregnant and that she was discriminated against when the city treated her differently than male officers. The city responded that she was fired for signing a warrant falsely accusing her former boyfriend of violating an order of protection.

Following her termination, Pierce filed an appeal that was heard by the Humboldt Mayor and Alderman. During this hearing, the police department explained that Stewart accused her former boyfriend of violating an order of protection by following her into the Humboldt Wal-Mart. The charge was investigated by city police, who determined there were insufficient grounds to file a charge. At this point, Pierce signed a warrant which led to the arrest of the former boyfriend.

The mayor and aldermen learned that Chief Raymond Simmons and Assistant Chief Bill Baker went to Wal-Mart and reviewed the security video. The video contradicted Stewart’s version of events, showing that the former boyfriend never followed her and was at the store when Pierce arrived. Based on this information, Chief Simmons asked Assistant Chief Baker to conduct an internal affairs investigation and the city suspended Pierce with pay. Based on the internal affairs report, the city terminated her employment. Pierce subsequently sued, which led to the summary judgment.

Rainey Kizer Obtains Voluntary Dismissal Of Human Trafficking Claim No Merit To Claim Against Firm's Client, The Wise Foundation

noemail@raineykizer.com — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:00:00 GMT

JACKSON, TN (December 9, 2011) -- The Law Firm of Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell PLC (Rainey Kizer) has obtained voluntary dismissal of a case alleging that their client, the Foundation for Worldwide International Student Exchange (WISE Foundation) was engaged in human trafficking for profit. The voluntary dismissal notice was filed on December 6, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division. Plaintiffs' attorneys had listed the WISE Foundation among the defendants in a suit alleging violations pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The suit alleged that the WISE Foundation was one of multiple parties involved in bringing workers to the United States on H-2B (guest worker) visas, then abusing the workers. My client brings international students to the United States on J-1 (student) visas, but does not and has not used H-2B visas, said Rainey Kizer attorney...

Two Rainey Kizer Attorneys Named to Leadership Positions in State Association

noemail@raineykizer.com — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:00:00 GMT

Two attorneys in the Jackson office of Rainey, Kizer, Reviere and Bell (Rainey Kizer) were elected to leadership positions in the Tennessee Defense Lawyers Association (TDLA) during the group’s annual meeting in Chattanooga. Brad Box was elected Secretary/Treasurer and Michael Mansfield was elected to join the Board of Directors.

Box served as a member of the TDLA Board prior to being chosen for his new position. He was recently recognized in Law & Politics magazine’s list of Tennessee “Super Lawyers” and is a graduate of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

Box is a member of the Tort and Insurance and the Malpractice practice groups at Rainey Kizer. He focuses his practice on litigation and trial practice, with an emphasis on personal injury, commercial litigation, products liability, workers’ compensation, insurance coverage, medical malpractice, nursing home defense, and construction litigation. Box represents many nationally known companies and insurance carriers as well as companies located exclusively in Tennessee and Mississippi. He holds the position of recruiting partner within the firm.

Mansfieldis also a graduate of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. Law & Politics magazine likewise lists him as a “Rising Star” among Tennessee attorneys. Mansfield is a member of the Firm’s Employment Law and Tort and Insurance groups, and he emphasizes worker’s compensation defense, personal injury defense, and insurance coverage litigation in his practice. He also regularly advises corporate clients with regard to employment law matters and serves as Editor of the firm’s Semi-Annual Employment Law Newsletter.

About the Tennessee Defense Lawyers Association

The TDLA is a group of lawyers primarily engaged in defense litigation, who have the opportunity to exchange ideas, techniques, and information through the association. The organization strives to improve trial practice by supporting high standards for litigation practice and courtroom manners within the adversarial system of jurisprudence.

Attorney Profiles

Fri, 11 May 2012 13:03:37 GMT

Click on attorney name to view profile. Members Attorney Phone Number Email Bell Jr., William 731.426.8113 bell@raineykizer.com Binkley Jr., Robert 731.426.8121 rbinkley@raineykizer.com Box, Bradford 731.426.8142 bbox@raineykizer.com Burleson, John 731.426.8114 jburleson@raineykizer.com Cleek, Ashley 731.425.7950 acleek@raineykizer.com Conder Jr., Dale 731.426.8130 dconder@raineykizer.com Crider, Adam 731.425.7954 acrider@raineykizer.com Exum,...

Tue, 08 May 2012 20:05:09 GMT

V. Latosha Dexter Of Counsel Phone: 901.333.8101 Fax: 901.577.1416 Email: ldexter@raineykizer.com Morgan Keegan Tower 50 N. Front Street, Suite 610 Memphis, Tennessee 38103 Ms. Dexter began her association with Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C. upon receiving her Doctor of Jurisprudence from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 2000. In law school, Ms. Dexter was a member of the Tennessee Law Review and served as Lead Student Materials Editor. Ms. Dexter concentrates her practice in the areas of employment law litigation, (representing employers only), municipal law, education law and federal civil rights litigation. Ms. Dexter conducts internal investigations for employers and advises employers on issues concerning Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and other...

Malpractice

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:01:40 GMT

Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., has a long history of representing hospitals, physicians, dentists, and other healthcare institutions and healthcare professionals in defending against claims of negligence and professional malpractice. Our Malpractice Group consists of attorneys with extensive experience representing and advising healthcare professionals. In addition, the Group has a legal support team, including a full-time nurse/paralegal, to assist with providing expertise in connection with medical malpractice defense cases. The mission of our Malpractice Group is to provide risk management, educational, and litigation defense services to medical providers, healthcare institutions, attorneys, and other professionals in Tennessee. Members of the Malpractice Group also handle litigation involving medical and surgical devices, medical equipment, and drugs. Our firm works closely with insurance carriers, healthcare professionals, and risk management departments to provide...

Healthcare

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:12:33 GMT

The Healthcare Group focuses on federal and state regulatory requirements, corporate affiliations within the healthcare industry, and drafting and reviewing contracts and agreements of all types involving a variety of healthcare clients. Among our clients are hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living facilities, physicians and physician groups, physician practice management companies, third-party billing companies, and other health-related organizations. Attorneys within the Healthcare Group advise clients on issues regarding Medicare and Medicaid programs and assist with corporate structure and organization, managed care contracts, clinical trials, and federal and state licensure issues. Our attorneys also advise clients concerning business relationships in light of relevant federal and state anti-fraud and abuse laws (including Stark and Anti-Kickback Laws), the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA),...

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:55:47 GMT

A. Blake Neill Associate Phone: 901.333.8101 Fax: 901.577.1416 Email: bneill@raineykizer.com Morgan Keegan Tower 50 N. Front Street, Suite 610 Memphis, Tennessee 38103 Mr. Neill is an Associate with Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., and has been associated with the Firm since receiving his Doctor of Jurisprudence from the University of Memphis, Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law. Mr. Neill focuses his practice in the areas of litigation, employment law, insurance coverage, and general insurance defense. He is a member of the Firm's Tort and Insurance Practice Group and Employment Law and Civil Rights Practice Group. Mr. Neill obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree from Union University and his Master of Theological Studies degree from Beeson Divinity School. Mr. Neill obtained his law degree, summa cum laude, from the University of Memphis, Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the...

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:38:48 GMT

Michael Burnett Joiner Associate Licensed in Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas Phone: 901.333.8101 Fax: 901.577.1416 Email: mjoiner@raineykizer.com Morgan Keegan Tower 50 N. Front Street, Suite 610 Memphis, Tennessee 38103 Mr. Joiner is an Associate with Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C, and has been associated with the firm since receiving his Doctor of Jurisprudence from the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law. Mr. Joiner's practice focuses primarily in the areas of litigation, employment law, insurance coverage and general insurance defense. He is a member of the Firm's Tort and Insurance Practice Group and Employment Law and Civil Rights Practice Group. Mr. Joiner obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree, summa cum laude, from LeMoyne-OwenCollege in Memphis, Tennessee. Mr. Joiner obtained his Master of Educational Leadership from the University of Mississippi, Phi Kappa Phi, where he...

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:29:16 GMT

Joshua B. Dougan Associate Phone: 731.426.8143 Fax: 731.426.8150 Email: jdougan@raineykizer.com 209 E. Main Street Jackson, Tennessee 38301 Mr. Dougan is an Associate with Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., and has been associated with the Firm since receiving his Doctor of Jurisprudence from the University of Tennessee College of Law. Mr. Dougan's practice focuses primarily on the areas of tort and insurance defense and workers' compensation. He is a member of the Firm's Tort and Insurance Practice Group. Mr. Dougan received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science, cum laude, from Union University. At Union, Mr. Dougan was awarded the Political Science Major Award and the Elizabeth Tigrett Medal. Mr. Dougan received his Doctor of Jurisprudence with a concentration in Advocacy and Dispute Resolution, cum laude, from the University of Tennessee College of Law....

Tort and Insurance

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:06:43 GMT

The trial lawyers who practice in the firm's Tort and Insurance Group concentrate on providing superior representation and advice to insurers, insureds, and self-insured entities throughout West Tennessee in connection with litigation arising from auto accidents, tractor-trailer accidents, residential and commercial construction, premises liability, governmental tort claims, products liability, and wrongful death. In addition, members of the Tort and Insurance Group have significant experience litigating coverage issues on behalf of insurers in cases of suspected arson, theft, or other fraud committed by their insureds. Members of the group also have extensive experience handling claims against governmental entities brought pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act. These lawyers have tried numerous jury and non-jury cases in state and federal courts throughout Tennessee and have secured the firm a reputation as one of the preeminent litigation firms in the region. Aside...

Employment Law and Civil Rights

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:03:29 GMT

The focus of the firm's Employment Law Group is to provide our governmental and private business clients top-quality legal advice and representation in the areas of company policies and practices, discrimination claims, workers' compensation, and civil rights. The attorneys practicing in the Employment Law Group have many years of experience in defending employers against claims of racial and sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, ADA and FMLA violations, wage and hour violations, wrongful denial of unemployment compensation, retaliatory discharge, and workers' compensation. Likewise, the members of the group also have extensive experience in defending governmental entities, especially law enforcement agencies, against claims of civil rights violations. In addition to litigating these types of claims with the EEOC and at trial in both state and federal courts, the members of the Employment Law Group often assist clients in drafting employee handbooks, drafting...

Business

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:26:10 GMT

The lawyers who practice in the firm's Business Practice Group offer a wide variety of services to individual, corporate, and banking clients. The group is regularly involved in transactions for the purchase and sale of businesses, including asset and stock sales and transactions involving going concerns. The members of the Business Practice Group have extensive experience in handling all types of transactional work for clients ranging in size from local sole proprietorships to large national corporations. These attorneys assist clients in all stages of the transaction, from planning and negotiation of the transaction, to drafting of documents and the closing of the transaction. The attorneys who practice in Rainey, Kizer's Business Practice Group enjoy the reputation of providing quality service within the strict time limitations which often accompany these transactions. Additionally, members of the Business Practice Group have developed a thriving practice in the area of...

Lorem ipsum survey

noemail@raineykizer.com — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:31:50 GMT

Objectives:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diem nonummynibh euismod tincidunt ut lacreet dolore magna aliguam erat volutpat. Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tution ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis te feugifacilisi.

Duis autem dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit au gue duis dolore te feugat nulla facilisi.

Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci taion ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex en commodo consequat. Duis te feugifacilisi per suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex en commodo consequat.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diem nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut lacreet dolore magna aliguam erat volutpat.

Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci

Release Date: 13-Jun-08 8:31 AM
Expiration Date: 13-Sep-08 8:31 AM

Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci

Lorem ipsum

2008-06-13T13:31:50Z

Instructor: Instructor

Lorem ipsum