Mississippi Litigation Review & Commentary : Mississippi Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Phillip W. Thomas Law Firm : MS Litigation Review & Commentary

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Adley (Abdul)Wahab and Christian Allmendinger were sentenced in federal court this week. The DOJ's press release states:

Two principals of A&O Resource Management Ltd. have been sentenced for their roles in a $100 million life settlement fraud scheme, which included more than 800 victims across the United States and Canada.

Today, Adley H. Abdulwahab, 36, of Houston, a hedge fund manager and part owner of A&O, was sentenced to 60 years in prison.  Yesterday, the co-founder and vice president of A&O, Christian Allmendinger, 40, also of Houston, was sentenced to 45 years in prison. 

Allmendinger famously delayed a plan to flee based on the mistaken assumption that he would not be taken into custody after the guilty verdict.

Wahab famously lied about attending LSU.

The sentences fit the crime and these guys are getting what they deserve. Read all my posts on the A&O scandal here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There was a defense verdict this week in the Pike County medical malpractice trial against a doctor that I mentioned in this post. As reported by Shannon Ragland of the Miss. Jury Verdict Reporter in the comments, the style of the case was White v. Sumrall.

I believe that it was a labor and delivery case involving a birth that occurred approximately 15 years ago. The Kitchens Law Firm in Crystal Springs represented the plaintiff. Bob Ramsey of Hattiesburg represented the defendant. Judge Mike Taylor presided in the case.

I'm sure that there will be more information on this verdict in a future issue of the Miss. Jury Verdict Reporter.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There has been a lot of press lately about Mississippi's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and the stability of the program. Governor Barbour appointed a special commission to study the system. Here is a recent Clarion-Ledger article on the topic.

Much of the focus—and pretty much all of the Clarion-Ledger's focus—has been on the future stability of the “13th check”, which provides an extra check at the end of the year for a cost of living increase in retirement benefits.

Ted Carter with the Mississippi Business Journal's report on the issue focused on the question of whether the PERS assumed rate of investment return is sustainable. I believe that Carter's focus is correct and the investment return issue is the 600–pound gorilla with PERS—not the 13th check. MBJ's article states:  

The study commission has hired GRS Actuarial and Consulting Services of Southfield, Mich., to help with the panel’s audit recommendations and other proposals.

Schloegel said GRS and the panel will scrutinize PERS projections that the system can maintain returns of 8 percent on investments. “We want to know whether that needs to be looked at and challenged,” he said.

Tim Medley, a speaker and principal of Jackson financial advisory firm Medley & Brown, said 8 percent is “ambitious.”

The PERS Trust, the system’s policy board, should have more investment specialists serving on it and PERS itself should have at least “10” investment analysts rather than the single one it now has, Medley said.

Medley was being nice calling the 8% investment assumption ambitious. A more appropriate term would involve profanity, so I'll call it hog-wash.

Presumably, money paid into PERS by participants is invested in a combination of stocks and bonds. Care to take a guess on the average return of the S&P 500 for January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2010? 2.4%. In fact, the S&P today is at 1162, a level hit first it in 1998. Think about that. $1,000 invested in an S&P index fund in 1998 is now worth....$1,000.  

Stock market returns are fueled by economic growth. If the economy is growing at all—which is up for debate—it's not by much. And experts predict anemic economic growth could be with us for another decade as we recover from the 2008 financial crisis.

What about bonds? The Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF currently yields 3.2%. That number is not going up unless interest rates rise. But the Fed just committed to another 2 years of interest rates close to zero. You simply can't find consistent returns of 8% in this market. Historical returns are just that--historical.

How big of an impact does this have on the PERS system? Here is an example. A $1 million account earning 8% for 11 years will grow to $2,331,639. But if the account earns 2.4%, the total after 11 years is only $1,298,074. That's a difference of $1,033,565. I used the calculator at this website to reach these figures.

What's the bottom line? PERS is not sustainable at current levels unless there is a dramatic rise in interest rates or a huge turn around in the economy. Personally, I don't see either happening in the foreseeable future.

That means Mississippi would have to make up the short-fall by allocating money from the State budget to PERS or cutting benefits. Most likely, there will be a combination of both. This should scare state employees, including those in working in the the judicial system.  

But don't blame Governor Barbour or the special commission chair George Schloegel, Mayor of Gulfport. Barbour should get credit for not sticking his head on the sand on this issue and Schloegel is a good choice to chair the commission. Schloegel is the former president of Hancock Bank, which did not have to take TARP bailout money from the government in the 2008 financial crisis. By comparison, Trustmark took $215 million and paid it back. Regions took $3.5 billion and hasn't paid it back.     

Mississippi's pre-paid college tuition program has a similar problem, as I discussed in this post.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There were at least four significant civil trials last week in Mississippi with the plaintiffs winning 3 of 3 that went to verdict. I did not get much information on all but the Amite County verdict. Here is what I know:

1. A $1.2 million verdict in Hinds County Circuit Court against Manhattan Nursing Home. I believe that Manhattan is in the Tara Cares System. Manhattan has a long tradition of being a bad nursing home dating back at least a decade to when it was in the Beverly system. Howard Thigpen of Morgan & Morgan represented the plaintiff. Barry Ford, Davis Frye and Brad Moody of Baker Donelson represented the defendant. Judge Tommie Green presided. This verdict will presumably be reversed due to the caps.
2. A $1.0–plus million verdict in Rankin County in a medical malpractice trial. I believe that the doctor got a defense verdict and the hospital was found liable. I don't know anymore about this verdict.
3.  A $125,000 verdict in Amite County against Farm Bureau Insurance. The case involved a dispute between former agent Alinda White and Farm Bureau based on Farm Bureau implementing sales quotas. Mitch Tyner of the Tyner Law Firm in Jackson represented the plaintiff. Dale Russell and Ellen Robb of Copeland Cook in Ridgeland represented Farm Bureau. Judge Al Johnson presided.

There was also a medical malpractice trial taking place in Pike County last week before Judge Mike Taylor. I do not know whether there has been a verdict.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I missed it. The Supreme Court issued an Order last week in the Sears v. Learmonth case where the Court is to decide whether Mississippi's cap on non-economic damages is constitutional. Here is the Court's September 15, 2011 Order.

The Order states that the Court is hung up on the fact that the verdict form did not separate economic and non-economic damages. The parties stipulated that the amount of non-economic damages was $2,218,905. The Order asks the parties to address:

 "what fact(s) and/or legal authority exist for this Court to accept a stipulation regarding the amount of noneconomic damages found by the jury?"

Here is the final judgement in the District Court. It does not separate the damages.

This case came to the Court via certification on the caps issue from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Justice Michael Randolph issued the Court's Order.

My Take:

Sears' reply brief is due November 28, 2011; several weeks after the November elections. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.

But cynics should keep in mind that this is not the first time that the Court has focused on this specific issue. The Court mentioned that economic and non-economic damages should be separated on the verdict form in the InTown Suites decision that I wrote about in June here. In that case, the Court ruled that the defendant could not challenge the amount of non-economic damages on appeal because the verdict form did not separate economic and non-economic damages.

In this case, the record does not contain a verdict form that separates economic and non-economic damages. Under the InTown Suites case, the verdict should be affirmed without reaching the caps question. Except the parties stipulated the amount of damages that were economic and non-economic. That was a bad stipulation for somebody. I can't decide who.

 The Court's request for more briefing on the stipulation makes sense based on the InTown Suites decision. This is all very interesting.

It would be funny if the Court answers the 5th Circuit's certification question by stating that the Court finds that under Mississippi law, the amount of non-economic damages can't be challenged when the verdict form does not separate economic and non-economic damages. Instead of answering the 5th Circuits question, the Court would answer its own question. Possible? Maybe.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Hinds County jury awarded $1.02 million last week to the victim of a miss-filled Coumadin prescription. Coumadin (Warfarin) is a blood thinner prescribed to prevent blood clots that can lead to injuries such as strokes.

Here is a copy of the Complaint. Margie Kemp was the plaintiff. Kemp alleged that Mississippi Discount of Drugs of Clinton gave her 10 mg. tablets of Coumadin instead of the 2 mg. tablets that her doctor prescribed. Employees of Mississippi Foundation of  Central Mississippi called in the prescription. The plaintiff sued both.

The error caused plaintiff to suffer Warfarin toxicity, coagulopathy, acute blood loss, anemia, intra-abdominal bleeding and a ruptured spleen. Doctors had to remove her spleen as a result of the injury.

The jury found against Miss. Discount Drugs and rendered a defense verdict for Miss. Foundation of Central Miss.

Judge Tommie Green presided in the case.

Walter 'Bubba' Morrison and Robert Greenlee of Sessums, Dallas & Morrison in Ridgeland represented the plaintiff.

Wade Manor of Scott Sullivan in Ridgeland represented Miss. Discount Drugs. Stephen Kruger of Page Kruger in Flowood represented Miss. Foundation of Central Miss.

My Take:

I feel Manor's pain. I once lost a miss-filled prescription case in Hinds County with Judge Green presiding. Hardly a week goes by that John Giddens (the winning lawyer in the trial) does not remind me of the case.

Incidentally, if you want to get a verdict against Kruger, you have to wear a burlap suit to trial.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by the Clarion-Ledger last week, Hinds County Chancery Judge Denise Owens issued an Order in favor of Meg Weidner against Trustmark Bank National Bank in a breach of fiduciary duty case. Here is a copy of the Order.

The case stemmed from Trustmark acting as trustee for a trust set up by Dr. William and Margaret Rosenblatt for the benefit of their children and grandchildren. Trustmark improperly disbursed over $1.7 million of principle from the trust to one of the two children (Dee Rosenblatt Farrell). Trustmark fired the employee who screwed up.  

Judge Owens ordered Trustmark to re-pay over $1.7 million to the trust. Trustmark also must pay $100,000 in punitive damages and the plaintiff's attorney's fees, which have not yet been adjudicated. I don't see how the attorney's fees could be less than six figures for a case of this nature.

The trust allowed the beneficiaries to withdraw from the corpus only to meet emergency needs. Trustmark's own policies required this type of distribution to be approved by the bank's trust committee with yearly accountings to the other beneficiaries. Each withdrawal had to be separately approved. None of the 150 corpus invasions over a six year period were approved by Trustmark's trust committee.

There was evidence that the Trustmark officer who screwed up alleged that Dee "had been conning him into invading the corpus to buy clothing."

Trustmark also never obtained the required approval of the disbursements from the other beneficiaries.  

Trustmark is in denial mode:

T. Harris Collier III, Trustmark's general counsel, said in a statement the bank is reviewing Owens' opinion "and considering all of our options."

"The ruling did not find any unauthorized disbursements from the trust," Collier said in the statement. "However, it found that certain administrative and documentation policies and procedures were not followed by the trust officer."

Mike Farrell of Jackson (no relation to Dee Farrell) represented the plaintiff. William Ray of Watkins & Eager represented Trustmark. Luke Dove of Jackson represented Dee Farrell.

My Take:

I didn't understand how this could happen.....until I read the statement by Trustmark's general counsel. Apparently, Trustmark's legal department can't read.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Clarion-Ledger ran this article on Monday about the $2.2 million verdict last week in Hinds County that I discussed here and here.

The article states:

Dr. Adolfo Morales, a board-certified ophthalmologist, had alleged CMMC breached a physician recruitment contract in 2004, which would have allowed him to establish a surgery practice in Jackson.

CMMC said in court papers the final agreement was never consummated because the home office of its parent company, Health Management Associates Inc. in Naples, Fla., had undergone a change in management that did not approve the deal that previously was struck.

But after a three-day trial in Hinds County Circuit Court, the jury sided with Morales.

Nothing in the article changes my prior take, which is that doctors usually win swearing matches. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I'm starting this week's non-legal report giving kudos to Alan Lange, author of Kings of Tort and formerly of Ya'll Politics.

While walking in Fondren at 6:30 a.m. Wednesday, I came across Lange and a bunch of JPD Officers who had a suspect in a patrol car. Lange had single-handedly apprehended a burglary suspect who had been spotted in Fondren several times in the past week. The suspect had stolen items on him at the time. Good job to Lange for helping clean up the neighborhood. 

My focus on college football is waning with the NFL season underway. With the New Orleans Saints emergence as an NFL power I have become a bigger fan of the pro game than college. The quality of play in the NFL is far superior. Except for the Saints' defense, which sucks.

The NFL passing game, in particular, is amazing. Plus, NFL games are usually played in 3 hours. In SEC games it seems like Tim Brando is turning it back over to Verne Lundquist for the second half at the 3 hour mark. Four hours is just too long for a football game.

The NFL also has the added feature of not having recruiting. I would give 2 pieces of advice to to college football fans to improve their lives (or at least look less weird):

1. don't follow recruiting.
2. never read the message boards.

Grown adults going crazy about where some kid is going to college is dumb. Even the ones who follow recruiting know this. More importantly, the correlation between signing individual players and recruiting success is murky. I quit following recruiting a good 10 years ago when I realized that the kids who generated the most excitement in recruiting rarely turned out to be the best players. Even worse, they often never played a down.

Schools have to recruit well to win. But that's done with good recruiting classes year after year. Ole Miss is not going to win a national championship just because they sign Billy Bob Barnett from Yazoo City. 

Message boards are a different matter. Message boards are for losers. I'm convinced that much of the material on message boards is complete fiction. And people believe it.

It always starts off with stuff like this fictitious post from someone who goes by the name NorthJaxReb: “I've got a friend whose cousin works in the Georgia A.D.'s office, and she says that Dan Mullen taking the Georgia job is a done deal.” Crap like this almost never turns out to be true.  

Do yourself a favor. Never read a message board. You'll thank me once you break your addiction.

Finally, I'm tired of reading headlines like the one from this article: SEC Officials Hire Lawyers Amid Ethics Scrutiny. Every time I see headlines like this I get my hopes up that what every non-Bama SEC fan knows to be true will finally be exposed: the Refs cheat in favor of Bama. But no, it always has to do with some crooked Wall Street shenanigans. Who cares?  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Here is some more information on yesterday's $2.2 million verdict in Hinds County that was the subject of this post.

The jury deliberated for 45 minutes. Judge Winston Kidd presided in the case. Mark Caraway with Wise Carter in Jackson represented CMMC. Lance Stevens of Jackson represented the plaintiff.

CMMC's main defense was that there was no contract. CMMC lost this issue on summary judgment, but plans to appeal the decision.

CMMC also believes that it was denied a fair trial because the court did not grant a continuance. The basis for the continuance request was that CMMC's main fact witness was recently diagnosed with cancer and is currently experiencing the ravages of chemotherapy. The witness was hospitalized the morning that the trial started due to injuries sustained in a fall.

My Take:

Sounds like this was a swearing match case. A doctor is almost always going to win a swearing match. Even when he is the plaintiff. I believe that this is because Americans are indoctrinated from birth to trust their doctor. This carries over into the courtroom. 

Here, the doctor and hospital disputed whether a contract existed. The doctor is going to win this type of swearing match most of the time regardless of whether he is the plaintiff or defendant in the case and whether there are holes in his story. 

I reject cases all the time because they are going to come down to a swearing match between the doctor and patient over what was said and happened. I feel like I have better odds in a casino that on winning a swearing match against a doctor.

CMMC's argument on appeal will likely be that the existence of a contract was a question of law and the trial court got the ruling on this issue wrong. That would take the doctor swearing match out of play. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Wednesday a Hinds County jury awarded a physician $2.2 million in a lawsuit against Central Mississippi Medical Center (CMMC) for breach of contract.

Jackson attorney Lance Stevens represented the plaintiff-doctor.

I will post more information about this verdict if when it becomes available.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week the Mississippi Supreme Court issued decisions in two cases that will allow voters in the November elections to decide issues related to abortions and eminent domain.The Court basically punted on the substantive issues and decided the cases on procedural grounds.

In Hughes v. Hoseman the plaintiffs challenged Measure 26, which asks voters to decide whether life begins at conception. Cliff Johnson and Rob McDuff of North Congress Street in Jackson represented the plaintiffs.

Here is the Court's 7–2 opinion. Justice Pierce wrote the majority opinion. Here is a CNN article on the case.

The Court determined that the dispute is not ripe for adjudication, since the amendment has not passed yet. The decision contradicts a 2000 Miss. Supreme Court decision that ruled that the Court does have the authority to review the constitutionality of proposed initiatives. Neither side raised the ripeness issue.

In Speed v. Hoseman, the plaintiff challenged the State's ability to take and transfer private property through eminent domain. Here is the Court's 7–2 opinion. Justice Lamar wrote the majority opinion. As in the personhood case, the Court dismissed the case on ripeness grounds.

My Take:

I thought David Hampton's analysis in the Clarion-Ledger was good:

It is disappointing that the state Supreme Court is allowing the referendums on eminent domain and the so-called "personhood" amendments to proceed on the Nov. 8 ballot. There clearly are legal issues with both, but the court basically punted and said the election should be held before any further consideration. The court said it was not known if the amendments would be rejected, so it would be premature. News flash.  As flawed and potentially harmful as both of these amendments are, they will be overwhelmingly approved. The move to restrict eminent domain appeals, wrongly so, to property rights beliefs and the personhood amendment is a thinly veiled referendum on abortion. They have strong public support. They, along with the initiative to require voter ID, however, mostly are politically motivated efforts to appeal to voters passionate about those issues and bring voter turnout, which Republicans see as beneficial to the GOP. The Supreme Court will be seeing these again. The fact that we have an elected Supreme Court most likely played a role here. It would have been very politically unpopular for the judges to block the election. That's too bad. These initiatives should not be on the ballot.

In all likelihood, the Court's decision simply delays its having to rule on these politically sensitive issues. I prefer an appointed judiciary so that observers don't view “an elected Supreme Court” as being a factor in decisions.

Finally, these opinions are more evidence that the principle of stare decisis is not strong in Mississippi—at least not currently.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There are reports of a $7.5 million verdict last week in Coahoma County. The case was a wrongful death case involving the death of a 2–year old in an apartment fire.

Ralph Chapman and Brennan Chapman of Clarksdale represented the plaintiff.

I will post more information on this verdict if I get any. I'm sure that an upcoming issue of the Miss. Jury Verdict Reporters will have a full report.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The 2007 Supreme Court Decision:

In June 2003, Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Lamar Pickard granted Sherwin-Williams summary judgment in a lead paint case (Pollard v. Sherwin-Williams). The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed. But on February 15, 2007, the Miss. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for trial in a 5–4 decision.

Here is the Court's 2007 opinion. In reversing the trial court, the Court relied in part on the report of Plaintiff's expert Dr. John Rosen. Justice Randolph wrote the 2007 majority opinion. Chief Justice Smith dissented, arguing that there was no evidence of product identification. Justices Carlson, Dickinson and Easley joined the dissent.

The 2011 Supreme Court Decision:

The trial was in the Summer of 2009 and resulted in a $7 million jury verdict. Sherwin-Williams appealed. On Thursday the Mississippi Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the verdict and rendering the case in favor of Sherwin-Williams. Here is the Court's 2011 opinion.

On appeal, Sherwin-Williams argued that Plaintiff's expert opinions on causation (including Dr. Rosen) were unreliable under a Daubert analysis. The Court agreed. 

Interesting language from the Court's opinion includes:

• “The plaintiff's experts seemingly contradict each other and themselves.”
• “it is difficult to determine whether Lidsky's opinion in the case is, proverbially, a chicken or an egg.”
• “Dr. Lidsky was, essentially, leaning on Dr. Rosen's theory of causation, who was leaning on Dr. Lidsky's theory of injury, who was leaning on Dr. Rosen's theory of causation…ad infinitum.”

Justice Pierce wrote the Court's opinion. Justice Kitchens wrote an opinion concurring in result only and was joined by Justices Chandler, King and Randolph (in part). Justice Kitchens asserted that Sherwin-Williams should win because there was no proof of product identification.

Nine lawyers represented Sherwin-Williams on the appeal, including Wayne Drinkwater, Luther Munford, John Corlew and other lawyers with their firms. Plaintiff's attorneys were Porter & Malouf of Ridgeland, Michael Casano of Gulfport and Dennis Sweet of Jackson.

My Take:

In retrospect, it's easy to say that the Court should have affirmed summary judgment in 2007. Lord knows that's got to be what Judge Pickard thinks. But the reality is that the differing standards of review in summary judgment and Daubert make it possible that the Court was right both in 2007 and 2011.

This case was a plaintiff lawyer's worst nightmare and and dream case for defense lawyers. On the plaintiff side, if you are going to lose a big and expensive case like this, you want it to be early—like in 2003 when Judge Pickard granted summary judgment. That saves you a ton of time and money.

Defense lawyers benefit when the reverse happens. This case had a big trial and was at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals a total of three times. With all the experts involved, I bet Sherwin-Williams had $3–5 million in this case.   

It was interesting that Justices Carlson and Dickinson did not join the concurrence, which seemed to be based on the same reasoning as their dissents in 2007. If they had joined the concurrence, then the concurrence would have been the majority opinion and the case would have gone down on product identification instead of Daubert.

The significance of this is that the case would have little—if any—precedent value because product i.d. was such a basic element of the case. A Daubert opinion has the potential to be more in play in future cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The people have spoken and what they want more of on this legal blog is…..football. Key up the theme music from Monday Night Football.

So what's up this week?

Last week I talked about Texas A&M joining the SEC. That appeared to be a done deal on Wednesday until Baylor and its president Kenneth Starr threatened to sue everyone back to the stone age. Yes, that Kenneth Starr. Who knew he was coaching Baylor?

How rich is the irony that a Baptist college is threatening to sue because it is afraid it will be left out of the football money trough? But it makes sense when you consider that the Big J himself is suing the Republican National Committee for slander.

Meanwhile back in the SEC, LSU put an absolute beat-down on Oregon last weekend in Dallas. The win was not surprising to SEC fans who thought that Auburn did not play its best game against Oregon last year in the BCS Title Game and that several SEC teams would have beaten Oregon that night.

Bryan Curtis wrote a great article about SEC pride. My favorite lines from the article:

Listen as "S-E-C!" rings throughout BCS-dom. Oregon got a chorus from LSU Tigers fans Saturday night — a sequel to the SEC chant Auburn fans laid on them at January's title game. LSU players chanted it at Ohio State after the 2008 title game; Florida Gators fans chanted it at the Buckeyes in 2007.

After the national championship each year, the SEC fan rushes to message boards to make sure the three magic letters have been uttered. "No SEC chant Bama?" an LSU fan wondered after the 2010 title game. The next year, it was up to a Bama fan to ask, "Did Auburn do the SEC chant?" The South's football teams can whip anybody — this the SEC fan knows. But he worries his neighbors will forget to remember to rub it in.

The other big story in Mississippi football this week was Ole Miss giving away their game against BYU. The Rebs couldn't run the ball and lost their two top running backs to injury in the game. So Ole Miss will be looking to air it out more, right? Wrong. Welcome—Ole Miss fans—to the wonderful world of Houston Nutt. The Clarion-Ledger reports:

So it's time to go four-wide, right? Spread 'em out and open up some running lanes for a speed back (Jeff Scott), while also utilizing the cannon that is Stoudt's arm? Make Southern Illinois scramble on the sideline as it tries to adjust and find extra cover guys?

Well, uh, no.

"We'll depend on these backs," Nutt said. "We won't shy away from Jeff Scott, Devin Thomas. We'll go right along, according to plan, using that playbook and try to give us the best chance to win."

Great idea coach. Why mess with “success.” With 'success' being defined as something that worked when you had different players. I hear the frat houses are full of kids who can run 4.9 40's, so you're set at running back.

This is an example of why Arkansas fans got sick of Nutt. He's not a change the plan kind of guy. He'd rather lose it his way than win it someone else's way. Don't believe me? Go look up what happened to offensive master-mind Gus Malzahn at Arkansas. He left after a year because Nutt wanted to run it every play.

Nutt's way worked at Ole Miss when he had Dexter McCluster, who fit his system perfectly. It doesn't work with the personnel he had last year and has this year. But Nutt doesn't change a thing. It reminds me of when James Bell went to Jackson State and grounded the most prolific passing attack in the country because he ran a different system.

Ole Miss looks like they might lose 7 or 8 conference games this year. If that happens Nutt is gone.

As if Ole Miss didn't have enough problems, there's this effort to have Mississippi voters decide whether to restore Colonel Reb as the Ole Miss Mascot. In essence, the cranks people behind this initiative are saying: “we don't care if we suck in football; we'd rather have our racist heritage symbols.”

I know, I know. It's not about slavery or white supremacy. It's about rembering the good old days. The days when you did have slavery and white supremacy. But that's just a coincidence. Some people are just too sensitive about "tradition."  

If they can get that on the ballot, it has an excellent shot of passing. I'd vote for it in order to solidify Ole Miss as the SEC West patsy. All the Miss. State fans would vote for it for the same reason. So would all the fans of other SEC schools. The only people who would vote against it would be the non-crank Ole Miss fans. And they're in the minority.

Hee hee. I made a funny.

Why does the paper run a painting of Colonel Reb when I've got his picture right here?

Meanwhile, Arkansas' A.D. Jeff 'No Clue' Long is bragging about the Hawgs getting asked to join the Big 12. You mean the same Big 12 that lost Nebraska and Colorado and is in the process of losing Texas A&M? The conference that has the old Southwest Conference schools that Arkansas left to join the SEC? That Big 12? And you're bragging about it?  

Wow! Very that's a very impressive invitation. Maybe if that doesn't work out Long can get the Hawgs admitted to the Sunbelt Conference.

That's about like a lawyer bragging about all the emails he gets from prospective international clients to collect debts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mississippi had two big wins recently in civil litigation headed by Attorney General Jim Hood.

Mississippi Recover $8.1 Million in Tobacco Litigation

A couple of weeks ago, Jackson County Chancery Judge Jaye Bradley ordered R.J. Reynolds to pay the State over $8.1 million based on the company under paying the State in money owed from the 1997 tobacco settlement. Here is the Clarion-Ledger article on the State's win.   

Can you believe it? A tobacco company lied about cigarettes. What's the world coming to?

 Meanwhile, General Hood's opponent in the November A.G. election criticizes Hood's use of out-of-state lawyers in A.G. litigation:

His opponent in this fall's election, Steve Simpson, has criticized Hood for selecting law firms to represent the state without independent oversight.

"If elected, I will ask the Legislature to establish a procedure to review the reasonableness of the contingency fees after an application by the law firm," Simpson said in a statement. "I believe that our law firms in Mississippi are some of the best in the country and will ask that these firms be given preferential treatment when outside counsel is required."

So who were these lawyers who Hood hired for the recent tobacco litigation? The Ledger reports:

The state's legal team was headed by Lee Young, who worked on the original tobacco settlement, Hood said.

So where is this “Lee Young” from? Oh, Pascagoula. Granted that's in Mississippi, but barely.

Assisting Young on the tobacco case were Matthew Mestayer of Biloxi and Charles Mikhail of Moss Point.

Mississippi Recovers $38 Million in Drug Litigation

Wednesday's Clarion-Ledger reports that the State is recovering $38 million from Sandoz, Inc. for inflating wholesale prices of prescription drugs:

Judge Thomas Zebert awarded Mississippi $23,661,618 in compensatory damages, $11,830,809 in punitive damages and $2,699,000 in penalties, for a total of $38,191,427.

In addition, the court entered an injunction on Sandoz reporting false average wholesale prices to Mississippi, the release stated.

"Sandoz, with its greed for more profits, caused Mississippi to overpay on drug prescriptions and some of our neediest citizens were being denied health care due to cost overruns," Hood said in the release.

Representing Mississippi in the drug litigation was Ronnie Musgrove (name sounds familiar) of the Copeland Cook law firm in Ridgeland. The only odd thing about that is that Copeland Cook is a large insurance defense firm.

My Take:

In a two week period Jim Hood recovered $46 million for the State. And he did it with Mississippi lawyers. This was probably not the best two weeks for the Simpson campaign. 

The problem that Republicans have in unseating Jim Hood is that Hood seems to be doing a credible job as A.G. I agree with Simpson that Mississippi lawyers should get preferential treatment when outside counsel is needed. But it's not like Hood only uses out-of-state lawyers. Mississippi lawyers are sprinkled in even on the cases where out-of-state lawyers are used. I just don't see Simpson getting much traction with this criticism of Hood.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I previously discussed Union Carbide's Motion to Recuse Judge Bowen from hearing further proceedings in the Smith County asbestos drilling mud case that resulted in a $322 million verdict. In July, the Mississippi Supreme Court stayed proceedings in the case pending its decision on the recusal issue.

Here is the plaintiff's response brief filed with the Supreme Court. The plaintiff's main argument is that Union Carbide waived its recusal request by failing to timely assert the motion. Judge Bowen disclosed that his father was exposed to asbestos before the trial. The brief states:

Union Carbide was given these facts before trial. Despite the fact that Union Carbide and Conoco Phillips had six lawyers in Raleigh, along with a Research Squad laden with laptops, printers, and a comprehensive database which managed to track down detailed private data of several hundred venire members, they claim they were unable to determine anything about Judge Bowen's parents until after trial. In light of the presence of the Research Squad, a half-dozen lawyers, and seemingly infinite resources to scour the data of Smith County residents, this argument is not credible.

The plaintiff also contends that no reasonable person would question Judge Bowen's impartiality.

Here is Judge Bowen's supplemental response in the Supreme Court. Judge Bowen states that he didn't know that his father ever had an asbestos claim.

My Take:

Six lawyers at trial? And a Research Squad? Outstanding. I envision the Research Squad entering the courthouse every day dressed in camo with laptops and printers strapped to their backs.

One time back in the day I was 5^th chair at a trial. I watched the whole trial from the third row of the gallery. It was fun—in a way. I was billing hours and learning about trial practice with absolutely no pressure. I ate like a king and slept like a baby at night. It was bit like going back to NITA for a week, except I didn't have to do anything and the trial was for real. I'm the type of lawyer who thinks that I should always be the one first chair at a trial, so I couldn't have made a career out of 5^th  chair. But it was fun to do once.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With Judge Spark's over in Texas canceling the kindergarten party and yours truly not getting and invitation to Swagfest, I'm saying to hell with it. After 2 1/2 years of serious blogging, it's time for a Fun Friday. So what's up?

Are you kidding? What's up? It's Christmas Eve in Dixie. College football kicks off tomorrow.

The big news, of course, is the prospects of Texas A&M joining the SEC. I view Texas A&M as the SEC school that we put up for adoption at birth and is now being reunited with its birth siblings. They might not have been in the family for the last 50 years, but we feel like we know them. 

No one--and I mean no one--is more excited about A&M joining the SEC than LSU fans. LSU and Texas A&M played a great year-opening series in the 80's and 90's that was popular with fans of both schools. It was turning into an honest to god rivalry when the games stopped. LSU fans want to renew the rivalry. And God forbid the Tigers don't have to play Florida every year when they add A&M to the conference slate.

For many LSU fans of my era, a road trip to College Station was unexpectedly the best road trip of their college days. A&M fans were extremely passionate, put on a hell of a show, but could stomach LSU fans without trying to start a fight. Truth be told, the Corps guys couldn't fight. Man they wanted to. But they were under orders or something. Things got a bit out of hand when LSU fans figured that out.

And that was pre cell phone days, which changed the equation for road trips. We weren't the Marines and men did get left behind. Sorry Chris. Sorry Matt. It seemed funny at the time. Still does, in fact. 

For SEC fans who don't know what they are getting, know this. Texas A&M belongs in the SEC. I challenge anyone to go to a game in College Station and tell me it's not the best game atmosphere outside the SEC.

They fill the stadium for yell practice the night before the game. That takes discipline. I don't know what yell practice is, but it sounds bad ass. If LSU tried to do that the stadium would end up getting burned down. If Ole Miss did it, no one could go to the game because their shoes got dirty the night before. Same for Florida and their tank-tops.

I don't really get that Corps thing. But whatever it is, it belongs in the SEC.

But without question, the best thing about Texas A&M is the band. I'm serious.

Anyone who thinks that A&M does not have the best band in college football has never seen it. I'm surprised Bama hasn't just bought the thing. It's hard to describe the A&M band to people who haven't seen it. But it's unique and very entertaining. LSU fans were crestfallen if A&M didn't bring their band to games in Baton Rouge--even the ultra apathetic and irreverent LSU student section delayed drink refills at half time to watch the A&M band.  

And really, shouldn't every school where the Bear coached be in the SEC?

Don't worry Ole Miss fans, you will still be the only school with this guy. Seriously, dude? And you don't know why State recruits better in Mississippi?

Don't worry State fans, you will still be the only school where your school symbol is a deadly weapon.

Don't worry Auburn fans, you will still have the biggest in-state inferiority complex in the SEC. 

Don't worry Arkansas fans, while A&M quickly builds conference rivalries, everyone will still wonder what went wrong with the basketball powerhouse we thought we were getting. 

Don't worry Bama fans, we'll all still hate you most of all. 

And for the SEC East, what the hell happened to you? 

So let me be the first to give A&M a proper welcome to the SEC: you suck, cheaters.     

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The September edition of the Mississippi Jury Verdict Reporter hit news stands this week and once again does an excellent job of reporting on Mississippi verdicts.

The verdicts reported in the issue include:

• the October 2010 $103 million legal malpractice verdict against Baker & McKenzie discussed in these posts;
• the $578,000 employment discrimination case discussed in this post;
• an August defense verdict in a federal court case involving a train-truck collision; (winning lawyer: George Ritter of Wise Carter)
• a July Hinds County verdict of $500,000 in a FELA case; (losing lawyer: George Ritter of Wise Carter)
• a May $175,000 verdict in a Jones County electrical negligence case;
• a July defense verdict in a Jackson County medical malpractice case;
• an August defense verdict in a Northern District Federal Court race discrimination case;
• a June $180,000 Hancock County verdict for negligence related to a mobile home;
• a plaintiff verdict awarding $0 in damages in a Harrison County negligence case; and
• a $13,680 verdict in a Monroe County eminent domain case.

My Take:

Aside from the anomaly of the Baker McKenzie verdict, it was another mediocre verdict report for plaintiffs.

How can you have a plaintiff verdict with no damages? If there are no damages, shouldn't it be a defense verdict? I don't get that one.

What a Summer for George Ritter of Wise Carter in Jackson. Let that be a lesson for all trial lawyers. You win some. You lose some. 

Ritter has never been afraid to tee one up, which is a characteristic of all good trial lawyers.