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

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

Tennessee's Subrogation Interest in Personal Injury Cases - Summer 2011

Casey Smith - noemail@raineykizer.com — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:00:00 GMT

One of the most recent pieces of legislation changing insurance companies’ obligations has been the implementation of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007. In a nutshell, this Act requires an insurer to protect Medicare’s interest in liability settlements. The Act also requires that an insurer notify Medicare of claims involving a Medicare beneficiary or potentially risk significant penalties. Tennessee has amended Tennessee Code Annotated § 71-5-117, which may have a similar effect on insurance companies at the state level. The amended statute includes language giving the State (or any entity acting on its behalf) a subrogation interest to “all rights of recovery” against any person when the State provides medical assistance for the cost of care or treatment for a recipient in a personal injury case. Once a recipient receives benefits, whether or not the medical assistance was contractual, the State receives an immediate subrogation interest in third party insurance benefits.

A significant aspect of the amendment is the requirement that the plaintiff’s attorney notify the State in writing to determine whether the State holds a subrogation interest in the claimant. The State has 60 days from receipt of the notice to respond by fax or certified mail with either the subrogation interest amount or a notice for additional time to determine the subrogation interest amount. However, in no event is the response time to exceed 120 days. If the State fails to claim a specific number within the period specified, the subrogation is extinguished and disbursements may be made without recourse upon the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney. While the amendment’s plain language does not expressly place any burden on the insurer, it is uncertain if the State will require insurers to comply with the amendment.

Insurers should keep in mind that this statute applies even if no lawsuit has been filed. Insurers can minimize potential exposure by gathering information about the claimant during claim investigation or discovery to determine whether statutory compliance is necessary. Insurers may also require the claimant to notify the State and wait until a response is received as a prerequisite to final settlement. During these difficult economic times, governments are passing legislation to ensure that they recoup expenses used to provide medical benefits to citizens. Insurers can minimize potential exposure by collecting accurate information about claimants and explaining to claimants the necessity of complying with all statutory requirements.

26-Jul-11 9:00 AM

Agents and Insurers Beware! Tennessee Law is Not Always on Your Side - Summer 2011

Casey Smith - noemail@raineykizer.com — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:00:00 GMT

In Morrison v. Allen, the Tennessee Supreme Court recently addressed several important issues related to an insurance agent’s duties and potential liabilities. Morrison obtained a term life insurance policy with a two-year incontestability clause, preventing the insurer from denying coverage because of any misrepresentations. Later, Morrison became concerned with his coverage level and met with his insurance agents, who recommended that he maintain his existing policy of $300,000 until acquiring a second policy with higher coverage. One agent prepared the applications and mailed them without further instructions to the insureds, who signed the applications without further review. The insurer issued a policy providing $1 million of coverage on Morrison, who later allowed his first policy to lapse. Two months later, he died from injuries sustained in a single-car accident. The insurer denied the claim because the application improperly failed to disclose Morrison’s conviction of an alcohol-related driving offense.

The plaintiff, Ms. Morrison, sued the insurer and the agents and eventually settled her case against the insurer for $900,000. However, plaintiff proceeded to trial against the agents asserting (1) breach of contract for failure to procure an enforceable policy, (2) negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).The trial court found that the agents breached their contract with the Morrisons by failing to procure an enforceable life insurance policy and awarded damages of $1 million plus pre-judgment interest. The trial court also awarded $300,000 for tort damages, and then doubled the tort award to $600,000 under the TCPA. The Tennessee Supreme Court held:

● If an agent agrees to obtain a policy that becomes contestable due to the agent’s negligent acts or omissions, then the applicant has the same right to recover against the agent for failure to procure as if no policy had ever been issued. Because the agents’ failure to use reasonable diligence resulted in a policy subject to challenge, the court affirmed the breach of contract award of $1 million.

● Agents were not entitled to a $900,000 credit because they could not prove that plaintiff’s settlement with the insurer partially satisfied the breach of contract claim. Plaintiff’s settlement agreement with the insurer released all claims and did not specify that the settlement money was in satisfaction of the breach of contract claim. Additionally, plaintiff did not sue the insurer on breach of contract alone.

● The tort and TCPA awards were improper because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the agents’ conduct caused the loss of the original $300,000 policy.

TheMorrison case contains several practical lessons for insurers and insurance agents. First, agents can be liable for the full amount of a requested insurance policy if they fail to properly procure it. Thus, agents should try to protect themselves through proper documentation showing compliance with the insured’s instructions and by taking every precaution to correctly and properly complete each application. Second, an insured’s failure to read an application will not automatically insulate agents from liability. Agents should not only instruct applicants to carefully review applications before signing, but also should not knowingly complete applications with incorrect information. Third, agents should always consider existing policies and should discuss the potential consequences of allowing an existing policy to lapse while a more recent policy remains in its contestability period. Finally, insurers and agents should work together when settling cases and drafting settlement agreements todecrease the likelihood of a plaintiff’s double recovery.

26-Jul-11 9:00 AM

A Court Win for Asset Protection Planning - Summer 2011

Will Bell - noemail@raineykizer.com — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:00:00 GMT

In recent years, asset protection planning has become as prevalent and as important as basic estate planning. Retirement funds are a category of assets exempt from execution by creditors, both under Tennessee law (TCA §26-2-105), and under the United States Bankruptcy Code (USC §522(d)(12)). In a recent U. S. District Court case in Texas, the U. S. District Court upheld that exemption. The facts in the case were that Shirley established an IRA account and named her daughter, Janice, as beneficiary. In 2007, Shirley died. Janice was allowed to make a trustee-to-trustee transfer of the inherited amount to another IRA, because the ownership of the new IRA was set up in the same way as the ownership of the old IRA, that being in the name of the decedent (Shirley) for the benefit of the IRA beneficiary (Janice). In 2008, Janice established an IRA account titled “Janice, Beneficiary – Shirley, Decedent,” to receive the funds of her mother’s IRA.

Later in the year, Janice filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy and listed the inherited IRA on her bankruptcy schedule and claimed it exempt from creditors under the Bankruptcy Code (USC §522(d)(12)). The Bankruptcy Court denied the exemption, but on appeal the U. S. District Court allowed the exemption from creditors.

The U. S. District Court ruled that the exemption met the two requirements under USC §522(d)(12) being: (1) the amount the Debtor seeks to exempt must be “retirement funds,” and (2) those retirement funds must be exempt from income taxation under one of several specified IRC provisions.

MY ADVICE: Asset protection can take simple forms or be quite sophisticated (such as asset protection trusts). When considering asset protection, look for all available alternatives, including statutory exemptions from execution for “retirement funds.”

26-Jul-11 9:00 AM

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 Caleb Meriwether Joins Rainey Kizer

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

Caleb Meriwether, a graduate of the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law, has joined Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell PLC (Rainey Kizer) as an associate attorney.

Meriwether is the son of Joy and John Meriwether of Jackson. He is the grandson of Herman and Lynn Watlington and of Evelyn Meriwether and the late J.H. Meriwether, all of Jackson

At Rainey Kizer, Meriwether is a member of the firm’s Malpractice Practice Group. He was admitted to practice by the Tennessee Supreme Court and is a member of the Tennessee Bar Association and Jackson-Madison County Bar Association.

In law school Meriwether received the CALI Award for Excellence in Insurance Law. The University School of Jackson graduate earned his Bachelor of Arts in English at the University of Alabama, where he was admitted to the Jasons Honor Society, which recognizes academic excellence and campus leadership.

Rainey Kizer's Angela Youngberg Predicts Greater Collaboration Among Healthcare Providers

noemail@raineykizer.com — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:00:00 GMT

Jackson, TN (November 14, 2011) -- Doctors and physicians will have to work more collaboratively due to impending changes in reimbursement from Medicare and other third party payers according to Angela Youngberg, Healthcare Practice Group Leader at the Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, PLC law firm. Youngberg’s remark came while she was a featured panelist at the Memphis Daily News seminar on “The Business of Health Care.”

“Payers such as Medicare are shifting away from paying providers based on volume under a fee-for-service payment method and are shifting toward payment methods that are founded upon cost savings, quality, and efficiency,” Youngberg explained. “Examples of integration or collaboration that are occurring include hospitals, employment of physicians, synthetic employment arrangements, co-management service arrangements, and accountable care organizations (ACOs).”

Youngberg was joined on the panel by Ken Beasley, CEO of OrthoMemphis, Bill Griffin, Vice President of Corporate Finance, Baptist Memorial Health Care, and George Hernandez, CEO of Campbell Clinic Orthopaedics.

Youngberg was recognized by her peers for inclusion in the Health Care Law section of The Best Lawyers in America® and is recognized as a Super Lawyer by Mid-South Super Lawyers® magazine. She serves on the Executive Council for the Health Law Section of the Tennessee Bar Association.

At Rainey Kizer, Youngberg maintains a diverse health law practice counseling physicians, physician groups, hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, DME suppliers, nurse practitioners, imaging facilities, home health agencies, pharmacies, institutional clients, physical therapy companies, and other types of healthcare providers and suppliers on a variety of healthcare matters.

Link to Memphis Daily News article

Rainey Kizer Attorney Geoffrey Lindley Wins Fees and Costs for Defendant in Discrimination Case

noemail@raineykizer.com — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:00:00 GMT

A defendant, represented by Rainey Kizer attorney Geoffrey Lindley, was awarded legal costs and attorney's fees by federal district and appellate courts following the successful defense of a race discrimination and retaliation claim. In Connor v. City of Jackson, Tennessee, Plaintiff George Connor alleged that the City discriminated against him on the basis of his race and then retaliated against him for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). I am pleased that the court found this claim to be without merit, and even more pleased that legal costs and fees were awarded to the defendant. This frivolous complaint distracted city and fire department officials from more important duties at a cost to Jackson taxpayers, Lindley said. The plaintiff alleged that he was unlawfully denied assistance from the City in preparing for a certification test, the successful completion of which was a requirement to maintain his position...

Rainey Kizer Attorney Michael Mansfield Updates State Nurses Association on Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Utilization Review Program

noemail@raineykizer.com — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:00:00 GMT

Michael Mansfield, a partner in the Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, PLC law firm was a featured speaker during the Tennessee Association of Occupational Health Nurses 37^th Annual Convention in Jackson. Mansfield gave the group an update on Tennessee’s Workers’ Compensation Utilization Review program.

As defined by the Tennessee Department of Labor, utilization review is the evaluation, of the necessity, appropriateness, efficiency, and quality of medical care services provided to injured employees by certified physicians. The program is intended to contain the cost of providing injured workers with medical treatment through the workers’ compensation system, while simultaneously increasing the quality of care the employees receive.

“Occupational health nurses are often on the front lines of workers’ compensation claims,” Mansfield told the conference. “Employers who provide workers’ compensation benefits, employees who receive workers’ compensation benefits, and the Utilization Review professionals who work to keep workers’ compensation costs down in Tennessee all depend on you to effectively manage those claims.”

He also advised that they work closely with their company’s workers’ compensation physicians to coordinate the best and most cost-effective care possible for their company’s employees.

Mansfield is a member of the firm's Employment Law Group, and he regularly advises corporate clients with regard to employment law matters in addition to serving as editor of the firm’s semi-annual Employment Law Newsletter. His areas of practice include insurance defense, insurance coverage, employment law, and workers’ compensation defense.

Law & PoliticsMagazine identified Mansfield as a Super Lawyers™ “Rising Star.” He recently has contributed chapters to both the Tennessee and Kentucky editions of the Defense Research Institute’s Compendium of Law.

Attorney Dale Conder, Jr. Wins a Directed Verdict in Favor of Grand Junction, TN Police Chief in 4th Amendment Case

noemail@raineykizer.com — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:00:00 GMT

Court Previously Dismissed Case Against the Town of Grand Junction

The Honorable J. Daniel Breen, Federal Judge for the West Tennessee District, issued a directed verdict on August 29 in favor of Police Chief Pat Ryan of Grand Junction, TN. Grand Junction resident Susan Tice also received a favorable verdict. Chief Ryan and Tice were defendants in a Fourth Amendment case brought by plaintiff Kelley Stone of Grand Junction. The plaintiff was seeking $300,000 plus attorney’s fees

Attorney Dale Conder, Jr. of Rainey, Kizer, Reviere and Bell, PLC represented the Town of Grand Junction as well as Chief Ryan in this matter. The plaintiff was represented by J. Jeffrey Lee of Memphis, TN. Tice represented herself.

In March 2010, Kelley Stone sued the town, Chief Ryan and Tice. Chief Ryan had arrested Stone twice in 2009, on charges that she stalked Tice.

Stone claimed that Tice and Chief Ryan conspired to violate the Fourth Amendment and that Chief Ryan violated the Fourth Amendment by arresting her without probable cause. She also claimed that Chief Ryan and Tice were liable to her for false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. Stone claimed that the city’s policies, customs, or procedures caused the Fourth Amendment violation.

In March, the court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment. The jury trial in the case against Chief Ryan and Susan Tice began Monday August 29, 2011. After Ms. Stone presented her evidence, Judge Breen granted Chief Ryan’s motion for a directed verdict. The court concluded that Ms. Stone’s evidence was not sufficient to allow her claims to go to the jury. Judge Breen dismissed all remaining claims against Chief Ryan and Susan Tice.

Grand Junction is located in Fayette and Hardeman Counties, TN east of Memphis.

Rainey Kizer Attorneys Brad Box and Dale Thomas Participate in National Workers' Compensation Conference

noemail@raineykizer.com — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:00:00 GMT

Brad Box and Dale Thomas, partners in Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, PLC, represented the law firm at the 66^thAnnual Workers’ Compensation Conference sponsored by the Florida Workers’ Compensation Institute (FWCI) in Orlando, FL. Topics covered included the impact of recent court decisions on workers’ compensation cases as well as changes in workers’ compensation laws at the state and national levels.

Both attorneys’ areas of practice include workers’ compensation, employment law, and insurance coverage.

“This is a constantly evolving area of the law, so Rainey Kizer has representatives at major conferences that address these changes,” Box said. “It’s part of our firm’s commitment to continuing education,” Thomas explained.

Both attorneys may be reached by phone at 731-423-2414. Their email addresses are, for Brad Box, bbox@raineykizer.com, and for Dale Thomas, dthomas@raineykizer.com.

Healthcare

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:45:30 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),...

Attorney Profiles

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:28:34 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,...

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:29:21 GMT

V. Latosha Dexter Associate 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 laws applicable...

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....

Malpractice

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:11:36 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...

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