The Voice^TM

We’re excited to have you join and present at DRI’s 2022 Annual Meeting in October. What are you most looking forward to at the meeting?

I’m looking forward to catching up and reconnecting with old friends, many of whom I haven’t seen since before the pandemic.  Zoom is great, but there’s nothing like being there in person.

What can attendees expect from your presentation: “The Supreme Court: Big Cases, Developing Trends, a New Justice, and What It All Might Mean for 2023”? 

We have a lot to talk about.  We just finished one of the most consequential Supreme Court terms in history, with the Court issuing landmark decisions against the backdrop of unprecedented behind-the-scenes drama and intrigue.  And next term is shaping up to be equally momentous, with some blockbuster cases on the docket -- not to mention a new Justice. 

Which recent Supreme Court cases do you think have the most potential to change the course of law in the nation? 

Last term had no shortage of big cases.  The Dobbs decision was an earthquake that will reverberate for decades in the legal and political spheres.  And the Court reined in the power of federal agencies in cases involving the EPA and OSHA, by holding that agencies lack authority to issue sweeping rules absent clear statutory authorization from Congress.  

At DRI, we’ve been paying close attention to changes to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which confirmed the court as the gatekeeper of expert testimony. What do you believe the greatest impact of these changes will be for the civil defense bar? 

I think the changes will help defense lawyers defeat arguments that courts should admit unreliable expert testimony on the theory that exclusion would be an extraordinary sanction, or that flaws in an expert’s methodology go to its weight rather than its admissibility.  The proposed changes to the rule are modest, but could go a long way toward clarifying the district court’s important role as gatekeeper.  

Which upcoming Supreme Court cases do you anticipate having a significant impact on the country? 

Where to begin?  I’m keeping my eye on a bunch of cases on the docket for next term, including the latest challenge to universities’ affirmative action policies, a big election-law case coming out of North Carolina, and the case that touches a topic near and dear to my heart – personal jurisdiction – where the Court will decide whether states can force companies to consent to general jurisdiction as a condition of doing business in that state. 

How have the new judicial appointments affected the Supreme Court? 

It’s hard to overstate the impact of the changes in the Court’s lineup.  The Court has a solid six-Justice conservative majority, which affects not just the outcome of the cases, but also plays a significant role in the types of cases the Court chooses to add to its docket. 

Which recent Supreme Court cases have you found the most interesting or surprising?  

How about last term’s decision in Concepcion v. United States?  The Court held that the First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence.  What made this 5-4 case both interesting and surprising is the majority opinion was written by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, Thomas, and Gorsuch – talk about an unusual alignment! 

What other trends are you monitoring as you look at the legal space generally? What should our members keep an eye on?

There’s been a lot of action lately focused on areas of our civil justice system that are vulnerable to abuse or otherwise need tightening up – I’m thinking about the rules governing class actions, the enforceability of agreements to arbitrate, the perennial problem of excessive punitive damage awards, the irrationality that often surrounds noneconomic damage awards for emotional distress and pain-and-suffering, these types of areas.  I think courts are becoming increasingly alert to the need for clear rules that ensure fair and rational outcomes. 

The DRI Center for Law and Public Policy is pleased to publish the latest in its series of analytical white papers aimed at keeping members well-informed about issues impacting the profession, the business of law, and the justice system. Nonlawyer Investment in the Legal Economy provides an in-depth look at the complicated realm of lawyer regulation and the rise of the “alternative business structure” or “ABS” movement. The white paper provides a snapshot of current experiments in reforming the structure of law firms and re-thinking the delivery of legal services to the public, while also foreshadowing challenges that derive from these changes and setting guideposts for further review of whether the intent of ABS matches the reality. Authored by Marta-Ann Schnabel (O’Bryon & Schnabel PLC), Chair of the Center’s Economics of Law Practice Subcommittee, and two of its most well-known, insightful, and hard-working members, Susan E. Gunter (Dutton Brock LLP) and Thomas J. Hurney, Jr. (Jackson Kelly PLLC), this short, easily accessible treatise is a must-read for anyone who is interested in the future of the profession.

Amicus Updates

The Center Urges NH Supreme Court to Reject Claims for Medical Monitoring Absent Present Physical Injury

DRI, through its Center for Law and Public Policy, partnered with the Tri-State Defense Lawyers, the SLDO for New Hampshire, and with the Washington Legal Foundation to file an amicus brief in the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Brown v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, No. 2022-0132 (N.H. 2022). The appeal addresses whether claims for medical monitoring absent a present physical injury should be recognized under state law. The case originated in federal court when plaintiffs sued the defendant corporation alleging that they had been exposed to chemicals purportedly released into local groundwater that increased their risk of illness. The district court certified questions to the New Hampshire Supreme Court about recovery for medical monitoring to detect illness or disease in the context of PFOA substances.

Mary Massaron, a former president of DRI and senior appellate shareholder with Plunkett Cooney, and DRI member Doreen F. Connor of Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, prepared and filed the brief on behalf of DRI and its partners. They urged the New Hampshire Supreme Court to maintain its longstanding requirement for an actual present injury and reject the plaintiffs’ request for a broad new right of action. DRI argued that allowing recovery for medical monitoring absence a present physical injury significantly departs from New Hampshire’s common law. DRI provided the court with support for this position from the many jurisdictions around the country that have rejected medical monitoring claims of this kind. A key decision that the parties and district court had discussed was Henry v. Dow Chemical Co., 373 Mich. 63; 701 N.H. 684 (2005), a Michigan Supreme Court decision rejecting medical monitoring. DRI had filed an amicus brief in that trend-setting litigation years ago. Henry and other decisions showed the national trend away from expanding liability to encompass such claims. DRI also explained that medical monitoring can impose costs onto claimants, the civil justice system, and the defendant corporations that are properly avoided by rejecting such claims.

ALF & DRI Argue That Damages Suits Involving the “Global Tort” of Causing Climate Change Belong in Federal, Not State, Court

Bolstered by climate-change activists and the plaintiffs’ contingency-fee bar, more than two dozen state and local governments around the nation have filed state-court suits seeking damages from fossil fuel energy companies for allegedly causing, or contributing to, global climate change through greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Masquerading as state-law nuisance and trespass suits, they seek “climate justice” in the form of exorbitant damages awards from the energy companies for the cost of mitigating and remediating the alleged local effects of global warming. The energy company defendants, which are among a multitude of far flung GHG sources around the world, contend that these suits are removable to federal district court because they necessarily involve uniquely federal interests, and thus arise under federal common law.

In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 21-1550, three Colorado local governments are suing two fossil fuel energy companies for their alleged substantial contributions to causing global climate change. After the Tenth Circuit joined other circuits in ruling that the suit is not removable to federal court, the energy companies filed a certiorari petition seeking Supreme Court review of the removal issue.

The Atlantic Legal Foundation, joined by the DRI Center for Law and Public Policy, filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the Suncor Energy case and address the removal issue. The amicus brief was authored by ALF Executive Vice President & General Counsel Lawrence Ebner, who also serves as vice chair of the DRI Center for Law and Public Policy.

DRI’s Annual Professional Achievement and Service Awards celebrate and honor outstanding performance by state and local defense organizations (SLDOs), DRI law firms and individual members. 

These awards identify peers who deserve recognition either for their professional contributions to, and achievements on behalf of, the defense bar and the civil justice system or their involvement in community and public service activities that have a positive impact on society at large. Recognition enhances members’ personal growth and accomplishments, provides us all with role models and strengthens members’ images in the legal and business communities and with the general public. 

Winners will be announced at the Celebration of Leadership on Friday, October 28, held in conjunction with the 2022 DRI Annual Meeting in Philadelphia from October 25–28. 

The 2022 award recipients are as follows:

LOUIS B. POTTER LIFETIME PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AWARD
John Parker Sweeney, Washington, D.C.

DRI FOUNDATION COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD
Carolyn M. Husmann, Missouri

TOM SEGALLA EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION AWARD
Melody Kiella, Georgia

DAVIS CARR OUTSTANDING COMMITTEE CHAIR AWARD
Stephen G. Pesarchick, Trucking Law Committee

KEVIN DRISKILL OUTSTANDING STATE REPRESENTATIVE AWARD
C. Scott Toomey, Pennsylvania 

ALBERT H. PARNELL OUTSTANDING PROGRAM CHAIR AWARD
Eric E. Kinder, Employment and Labor Law Seminar

SLDO DIVERSITY AWARD
Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association

RICHARD H. KROCHOCK AWARD
Baxter D. Drennon, Arkansas

DRI SLDO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AWARD
Aimee L. Hiers, South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' Association

FRED H. SIEVERT AWARD
Susan E. Gunter, Toronto

RUDOLPH A. JANATA AWARD
Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys (OACTA)

G. DUFFIELD SMITH OUTSTANDING PUBLICATION AWARD
Colton Driver, IDQ Fall 2021

DRI LAW FIRM/CORPORATE LEGAL DEPARTMENT DIVERSITY AWARD
DRI’s ADR Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Initiative

It was recently reported that researchers at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory determined that Wikipedia content is influencing judicial decision making in contested cases.  Their research indicated that Wikipedia influences what judicial case citations are utilized as well as the language of actual legal decisions. See https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/how-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior.  The results from the study are being published in “The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence” (Cambridge University Press, 2022). 

The researchers found a correlation between case citations utilized on Wikipedia and the studied opinions.  The researchers used a natural language processing technique to uncover “linguistic fingerprints” of the Wikipedia articles that the researchers themselves had created for the study in many of the legal decisions.  This study was a follow up to a study that had found a similar occurrence in connection with Wikipedia’s use and description of scientific articles influencing scientific discussions.   

This news is timely.  It comes as the National Foundation for Judicial Excellence (NFJE)’s Annual Judicial Symposium wrapped up in Chicago on July 16, 2022.   For more than 14 years, the NFJE and its volunteers have tirelessly addressed important legal policy issues and substantive law issues impacting our civil justice system, provided a forum for unbiased judicial education, as well as issues affecting the administration of justice in our courts.  As MIT’s research apparently highlights, there are numerous factors that can influence the judiciary and we need to remain vigilant to help curb any improper ones.        

Aside from Wikipedia, our judges and our judicial system are subject to frequent partisan attacks that attempt to undermine their independence. One need only look at events occurring around the world to realize the importance of a fully supported and truly independent judiciary in our society.  Our judges and our judicial system need our support in many ways, and the NFJE does its part through the fulfillment of its Mission of:  

NFJE has only been able to accomplish this through the generous donations and volunteer support it has received over the years. DRI members have been critical in this undertaking.  DRI and the DRI Foundation’s annual fundraising efforts for the NFJE during DRI’s annual meeting has been vital.  Sweepstakes, raffles, silent auctions, contests and other activities have been a mainstay for DRI’s annual meeting.  The combined efforts and success of all of these activities are greatly appreciated.  Last year, three DRI Committees--Insurance Law, Construction Law, and Law Practice Management--were able to shine in these efforts taking the podium and securing bragging rights and honors for their efforts.  Equally important, many, many, many members purchased tickets to bid on sweepstakes items or simply made contributions directly to the Foundation to help support the NFJE.  Each and every one of these donations was meaningful and appreciated by NFJE.   So, thank you all again for your generosity!  And, know that the monies donated and raised went directly toward NFJE’s mission to support the judicial system.   

Finally, since NFJE’s Judicial Symposium occurs each year and their other efforts are ongoing and continuous, once again we will be asking those that are able to support this important cause. 

Jim Craven is an attorney at Wiggin and Dana LLP in their New Haven, CT office. He is the Vice Chair of DRI Cares.

The National Foundation for Judicial Excellence, an organization dedicated to providing timely and top-notch education to our state appellate judges from around the country, hosted its Annual Judicial Symposium on July 15 & 16, 2022. 

The Richard T. Boyette Award for Outstanding Contributions to the National Foundation for Judicial Excellence was presented to H. Mills Gallivan, Gallivan White & Boyd, PA, Greenville, South Carolina at the NFJE Symposium on Friday, July 15.

Mr. Gallivan demonstrated a commitment to excellence in judicial education, showed exceptional creativity and dedication in program development, excelled in fundraising activities on behalf of NFJE and exemplified professionalism in promoting the case for a well-educated, independent judiciary. 

On behalf of DRI, we congratulate Mr. Gallivan on this respectable award! 

Jesse G. Reyes, Judge for the Illinois Appellate Court First District, took some time from the lectures to chat with Dean Martinez, DRI CEO, and his wife, Natalia

On July 8, 2022, Walter Judge obtained summary judgment for his client, a national chain restaurant with a location in Vermont, in a premises liability, trip-and-fall case.  The restaurant owns its building, but leases the ground it sits on from the shopping plaza landlord.  The restaurant’s leasehold extends to the outside edge of the sidewalk around the restaurant. 

At 6:00 PM in early November 2017, the plaintiff parked her car in the shopping plaza parking lot and walked toward the restaurant, where she was a regular patron.  Just before reaching the sidewalk around the restaurant, she tripped on a parking curb.  She claims she didn’t see it because it was “dark.”  She sued the restaurant chain and the shopping plaza landlord claiming insufficient illumination.  The overhead lights in the parking lot, controlled by the landlord, had not gone on yet.  Nor had a pole light next to the outer edge of the restaurant’s sidewalk, which was on a timer controlled by the restaurant, gone on yet.  The plaintiff’s attorney focused his aim on the pole light controlled by the restaurant, because it was the closest exterior light to where the plaintiff claimed she fell.  As a result, after discovery and depositions, the shopping plaza landlord moved for summary judgment because it did not control that light, and the plaintiff chose not to oppose the motion.  Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment to the landlord.  

Walter then moved for summary judgment on behalf of the restaurant, arguing, among other things, a) that it was not the restaurant’s property that the plaintiff tripped on, and b) in any event, the plaintiff offered no evidence of what the lighting level should have been and who should have provided it. 

The Court’s decision in the restaurant’s favor does not turn on whether or not the parking lot was “too dark.”  Instead, the decision is all about which defendant – the restaurant or the shopping plaza landlord – had the responsibility for lighting the parking lot.  Based on the undisputed facts (the Lease, the deposition testimony, etc.), the Court agreed with the restaurant that it was not the restaurant’s responsibility. 

Essentially, the Court ruled that there is no dispute that as she was walking through the parking lot toward the restaurant, the plaintiff tripped on a parking curb just outside the area leased and controlled by the restaurant, that is restaurant building and the sidewalk surrounding it.  The Court noted that neither the parking lot nor the parking curb was the restaurant’s property, but rather the landlord’s, and that the restaurant had no duty (or ability) to illuminate the area outside of its own, leased premises.  It cited both Vermont and non-Vermont case law (Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York) for the principle that a property owner or tenant has no duty to make adjacent, non-owned property safe – even commercial establishments whose patrons are known to traverse the adjacent, non-owned property, i.e., parking lots.  The Court did note that the restaurant-controlled exterior pole light, adjacent to the sidewalk, might have added some light to the parking lot.  But the Court said that that does not change the principle that it is the duty of the owner (i.e., the landlord) of the property in question (i.e., the parking lot and the curb) to make its property safe, not the duty of an adjacent property owner, i.e., the restaurant.  The Court also cited Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (“undertaking”) and found that the plaintiff offered no evidence that the restaurant had undertaken to make the adjacent parking lot safe.   

This is a good decision for retail establishments facing claims from patrons who are injured on property adjacent to, but not owned or controlled by, the establishment.  It is particularly valuable for certain “inadequate outdoor lighting” claims.

 

Case Style: Emma Dowell by and through her attorney-in-fact Brandy Dowell v. Mary Cay Koen, DDS 

Jurisdiction: Sumner County 

Case Number: 83CC1-2021-CV-230 

Trial Judge: Joseph Thompson 

Date Verdict: June 30, 2022 

Verdict: Defense 

For Plaintiff: Rick Piliponis and Sarah Martin, Higgins Firm (Nashville, TN) 

For Defendant: John Floyd, Jr. and John Floyd, Sr., Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford, PA (Nashville, TN) 

Summary: Plaintiff, then 12, was missing permanent teeth under her K and T baby teeth. She had numerous dental problems as a young child, including GERD that led to tooth decay and cavities. After fracturing a tooth on some candy, she presented to Clair Poff, DDS. Dr. Poff advised that the options for treating this damages tooth were to extract the tooth and close the space with braces or try to restore with a crown and place an implant down the road. Dr. Poff recommended the plaintiff see her orthodontist Dr. Koen so everyone was on the same page.  

The Dowells went to Dr. Koen who recommended extraction of the tooth (and the corresponding tooth on the other side which was normal) and to close the space with braces. The meeting lasted 15-20 minutes. The Dowells agreed and presented to Dr. Poff a month later for the tooth extraction of K and T. Mother testified it was a traumatic experience and based on prior records her daughter was extremely anxious when visiting the dentist for anything, much less extractions. This suit followed.  

Dr. Poff was initially sued, but later dropped after a voluntary nonsuit and plaintiff re-filed only against Dr. Koen. Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Koen was negligent in recommending the extraction of K and T as the extractions and closing the space with braces was not a reasonable treatment plan. They also alleged lack of informed consent in that they were not apprised of the option of crowning the tooth and leaving the baby tooth in place long enough to have implants. Their case was supported by Emma’s pediatric dentist William Taylor, DDS and her orthodontist Sean Doyle, DDS. Both of these doctors are in competition with Dr. Koen for patients. She also retained an expert Dr. Gerald Samson out of Atlanta, GA to support her care and treatment. Dr. Koen defended that the literature supported this treatment plan, including a recent article from her expert witness Dr. James Vaden, DDS out of Cookeville, TN. The jury found in favor of Dr. Koen and against the plaintiff.  

Injury/Damages: Subsequent jaw surgery, bone grafts, implants, deformity, pain and suffering. 

 

Case Style: Cynthia Latimer v. University Foot & Ankle Centers, LLC and Caroline Gannon, DPM 

Jurisdiction: Williamson County 

Case Number: 2014-CV-358 

Trial Judge: Joseph Woodruff  

Date Verdict: June 10, 2022 

Verdict: Defense 

For Plaintiff: Euel Kinsey, Thurswell Law (Detroit, MI) and Cary Bauer, Gilreath & Associates (Knoxville, TN) 

For Defendant: John Floyd, Jr., and John Floyd, Sr., Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford, PA (Nashville, TN) 

Summary: Plaintiff underwent a Lapidus bunionectomy procedure to correct a bunion on her left foot. Following the procedure, she suffered from hypermobility of the first toe and required remedial surgery by Nashville podiatrist Paul Somers, DPM. In her complaint, she alleged that Dr. Gannon did not provide informed consent and that Dr. Gannon recommended surgery to correct recurring stress fractures. Defense countered that Plaintiff was consented on at least four different occasions for surgery related to a painful bunion (not stress fractures), including by Dr. Gannon’s partner Dr. Jeffrey Poole. Additionally, the complication following the procedure was known and does not equate to negligence.  

Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the surgery she can no longer engage in daily activities, including running or flipping houses. She also claims that her foot causes her significant pain and that she incurred medical expenses to have a remedial surgery. Her claim was supported by St. Louis podiatrist Allen Jacobs, DPM. Defense testimony was supported by Dr. Gannon, Dr. Poole, and Covington, GA podiatrist Dr. Steven Carter.  

Injury/Damages: Subsequent surgery, deformity, ongoing pain in foot

John Trimble of Lewis Wagner in Indianapolis, IN, along with his team, have received a unanimous Indiana Supreme Court ruling in a landmark Indiana constitutional case. 

In 2021 the Indiana Legislature passed a law that would have allowed the legislature to call itself into a special session any time that the Governor issued an emergency order. 

The law was in response to concerns by the legislature over the Governor’s emergency orders related to COVID. The Governor vetoed the legislation because the Indiana Constitution gives him sole authority to call a special session. The legislature then overrode the veto. 

Governor Eric Holcomb then hired John and his firm, Lewis Wagner, LLP, to sue the legislature to have a court determine whether it was constitutional. The Indiana Supreme Court, in a closely watched and politically charged case, determined that the Governor was correct and ruled in his favor on all 8 issues in the case. 

Clients of DRI member Jerry Fazio of Owen & Fazio, P.C. in Dallas Texas obtained multiple victories in two different Texas Court of Appeals on July 21, 2022:  

In Lupe Holdings, LP et al v. Sanchez, the First Court of Appeals granted a writ of mandamus filed by Owen & Fazio, P.C. on behalf of their client. The Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion when denying a motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals held that the arbitrator, not the trial court, was the only appropriate entity to determine if the employee’s claim was filed within the agreed upon statute of limitations in the arbitration agreement. Further, the Court held that an employer has no legal duty to initiate arbitration against itself within the statute of limitations simply when the agreement says the company may.  

In Arrow Personnel, LLC et al. v. Grant, the Second Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Owen & Fazio, P.C. on behalf of their client. The Court ruled there was no genuine issue of material fact to the negligence element of duty sufficient to proceed to jury trial. Owen & Fazio’s client was a staff leasing agency and nonsubscriber to the Texas Workers’ Compensation System. The contracted with a manufacturing company, and subscriber to the Texas Workers’ Compensation System, to strictly provide employees while the manufacturing company retained control of the workplace and providing necessary safety measures. An employee was injured when he was struck by steel I-beams falling form a forklift/conveyor system operated by an employee of the manufacturing company. Although the injured employee was an employee of the staffing company, Owen & Fazio, P.C. successfully utilized the “right to control” test to brief and argue that their client did not owe a duty to provide a safe workplace or have control of the liability-producing aspects where the staffing company did not provide task-specific training, supervision, or equipment and did not control the property or task instructions. Therefore, the staffing company did not owe the nondelegable duties that nonsubscriber employers owe their employees. The manufacturing company also successfully barred claims against them filed by the employee pursuant to the Exclusive Remedy Rule. 

Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell’s Theresa Wardon Benz and Kevin Kuhn recently won an important victory in the Colorado Court of Appeals for a doctor client in Scholle v. Ehrichs. In an issue of first impression, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding good cause to exceed the $1 million cap imposed by the Colorado Health Care Availability Act (HCAA) and awarding the entirety of a nearly $10 million jury verdict in a medical-malpractice case. This is the first time an appellate court has examined the collateral source provision of the HCAA, and it provides a way to start chipping away at awards of billed medical damages—which, as this case shows, become nearly punitive when compared to the amounts actually paid by insurers.  

Of the original award, $6 million was for past medical damages billed. Post-trial evidence showed that only $1.7 million of that amount was paid by the plaintiff’s insurers. Although the Colorado Supreme Court has interpreted the contract exception to the collateral source rule to allow a plaintiff to recover the amounts billed, Benz argued that the HCAA’s collateral source provision (CRS 13-64-402) governed and that this provision required the trial court to take into account the amounts owed to insurers before entering its judgment. In this case, the plaintiff’s insurers had not filed a notice of subrogated interest, which meant they waived their rights to subrogation and nothing was owed. The appeals court remanded the case for the trial court to do a proper good-cause analysis and take into account the fact that nothing was owed for past medical damages. Because the plaintiff passed away during the pendency of the appeal (from causes unrelated to the alleged malpractice), future damages may be reduced as well on remand. 

Shuttleworth & Ingersoll shareholders Tricia Hoffman-Simanek and Vince Geis, along with the support from attorney Ross Andrews, obtained a defense verdict in a long-term care negligence case venued in Humboldt County, Iowa. Plaintiffs alleged Defendant, a long-term care facility, was negligent in the care of one of the residents, primarily pertaining to the prevention and recurrence of heel ulcers/pressure ulcers. Plaintiffs’ Petition also sought punitive damages. Plaintiffs’ firm – a well-known long-term care Plaintiffs law firm in Iowa – asked the jury for over $2 million dollars for pain and suffering/loss of full body and mind, as well as loss of consortium for two adult children. After a seven-day trial, the jury made a finding of no liability. 

Tricia Hoffman-Simanek litigates medical malpractice and senior living and long-term care cases. Her previous time serving on the Board of Nursing Home Administrators (Iowa’s licensing and disciplinary board) helped Tricia understand and navigate the different nuances of long-term care litigation. 


Vince Geis, similarly, focuses medical malpractice and senior living and long-term care litigation. He has represented nurses, physicians, clinics, hospitals, and nursing homes in front of Iowa juries.



Ross Andrews is a new DRI member, having just joined Shuttleworth & Ingersoll’s medical malpractice group in September 2021. He is already making an impact in his short time at the firm. His primary area of focus is senior living and long-term care litigation. 

Case Name: Estate of Ellen McCullough et al v. QHC Humboldt South, LLC
Firm Name: Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, PLC
Trial Team: Tricia Hoffman-Simanek, Senior Vice-President; Vince Geis, Vice-President
Support Team: Ross Andrews, Associate
City of Practice:  Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Keep The Defense Wins Coming!

Please send 250–500-word summaries of your “wins,” including the case name, your firm name, your firm position, city of practice, and email address, in Word format, along with a recent color photo as an attachment (.jpg or .tiff), highest resolution file possible, to DefenseWins@dri.org. Please note that DRI membership is a prerequisite to be listed in “And the Defense Wins,” and it may take several weeks for The Voice to publish your win.

Intellectual property partner Brian Brookey (a DRI member since 2014) has been named chair of the Tucker Ellis Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI) Committee. Mr. Brookey is a strong advocate for increasing EDI efforts within the firm, the legal community at large, and particularly the intellectual property field. Brian is also Vice Chair of the Intellectual Property Litigation Committee at DRI. 

McGlinchey is pleased to announce that Camille R. Bryant has been named “Leadership in Law” honorees by New Orleans CityBusiness. Camille has been a member of DRI since 2018 and is also a member in McGlinchey’s Labor and Employment practice group. She guides employers through a wide range of employment law issues, whether through litigation or advice and counsel. 

White and Williams LLP has announced the acquisition of a law firm nationally known for their work in the surety and construction space. Located in Towson, MD, Baltimore County.  Among those attorneys included, are DRI members David Gilliss (member since 1988), who will serve as Managing Partner of the Towson office, and Eric Korphage (member since 2006) as partner. 

DRI member Tanner J. Walls has joined Moye White LLC as a partner.  Walls represents businesses and corporations of all sizes in a range of legal issues, assisting those clients in complex commercial and employment litigation. Tanner has been a DRI member since 2012. 

If you have a recent achievement or recognition, you would like featured, email your news to membership@dri.org. Please note that DRI reserves the right to review all accomplishments to ensure they are adequate for publishing. All submissions will be reviewed for relevance and compliance with DRI’s mission.  Submissions may be edited to conform with our standards, and space limitations. 

17 State and Local Defense Organizations (SLDO) named its officers for the 2022 – 2023 Term during the months of May, June, and July 2022 at their Annual Meetings. 

Congratulations to DRI member Samantha E. Wilcox, of Goebel Anderson PC, who was appointed as the President of the Utah Defense Lawyers Association (UDLA) in May 2022. Samantha has been a DRI member since 2017.    

In June 2022, the Alabama Defense Lawyers Association named DRI member Stephen W. Still, Jr. as President and Jonathan Hooks as President Elect. Stephen has been a DRI member since 2006 and Jonathan since 2013.    

The Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel named Shane Baker as President Elect, Thomas Wyatt as Secretary, and Stuart Miller as Treasurer. All are DRI members. Shane joined DRI in 2022, Thomas joined in 2018, and Stuart in 1993.  

The Canadian Defense Lawyers selected the following DRI members for leadership roles: Andrea Lim as President, Heather Sanderson as First Vice President, and Lisa Pool as Second Vice President. Andrea has been a DRI member since 2013, Heather has been since 2010, and Lisa has been since 2007.  

In the Connecticut Defense Lawyers Association, DRI members Glenn Coffin became the Secretary and Kelly Petter became the Treasurer. Glenn has been a DRI member since 2010 and Kelly has been a DRI member since 2021.  

DRI member Denise Baker-Seal was appointed as the First Vice President in the Illinois Defense Counsel. Denise has been a DRI member since 2010.   

The Maryland Defense Counsel named new leadership, all of whom are DRI members. Christopher C. Jeffries, Esquire is President, Sheryl A. Tirocchi, Esquire, is President Elect, Amy E. Askew, Esquire is Secretary, and Zachary A. Miller, Esquire is Treasurer. Christopher has been a DRI member since 2014, Sheryl has been since 2020, Amy has been since 2002, and Zachary has been since 2019. 

The Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association elected John Brosnan as President Elect, Kyle Bjornlund as Secretary, and Jennifer Creedon as Treasurer. All are DRI members. John as been a member since 2014, 2008 for Kyle, and 2011 for Jennifer.     

John Mucha, III was named President of the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel. John has been a DRI member since 2005. 

DRI member James P. Maloney, Shareholder of Foland Wickens Roper Hofer & Crawford, assumed the role of President of the Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers. James has been a DRI member since 2014.    

For the Nebraska Defense Counsel Association, DRI member Tanya J. Hansen was named President at their Annual Meeting. Tanya has been a DRI member since 2009.    

Timothy R. Freeman, Esquire, of Tanenbaum Keale LLP, was appointed the Vice President of the Northern Region for the New Jersey Defense Association. Timothy has been a member of DRI since 2015.  

The North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys chose the following DRI members into leadership: Ashley Brathwaite as President, Christopher Kiger as President Elect, Jeffrey D. Keister as Executive Vice President and Erin Young for Treasurer. Ashley joined DRI in 2005, Christopher joined in 2004, Jeffrey joined in 2002, and Erin joined in 2002.   

The Oklahoma Association of Defense Counsel had two DRI members selected for leadership positions. Kari Hawthorne, member since 2007, was chosen as President and Bill McKee, member since 2017, was chosen as Treasurer.  

Congratulations to the following DRI members who took office for the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel: June J. Essis, Esquire became the new president and Andre J. Webb became the Secretary. June has been a DRI member since 1992 and Andre has been a DRI member since 2019.    

Congratulations to these four DRI members who were nominated into leadership roles for the Defense Trial Counsel of West Virginia: Susan Snowden as the President, a DRI member since 1986; Monté Lee Williams as the Vice President, a DRI member since 2006; Mychal Schulz as the Treasurer, a DRI member since 1994; and Bernard S. Vallejos, a DRI member since 2005.  

In July 2022, the Pennsylvania Defense Institute selected Daniel J. Twilla, Esquire as the Executive Vice President of Programming. Daniel, of Burns White LLC, has been a DRI member since 2013. 

This October, the DRI Foundation, along with participating state, local and national defense organizations (SLNDOs), will hold its first International Day of Service. The Foundation is asking SLNDOs to hold a service project of their choice, irrespective of size or scope, anytime during the month of October—and then let us know about it! Participation will give SLNDOs the chance to give back to the community; strengthen relationships with DRI members and SLNDOs across the nation; assist in membership development; and generate positive publicity. It’s as simple as that—hold a service project in October and share it with us. All you need to do now is plan your activity!

The Foundation has several resources to assist with your planning, including some suggested charities to help. Please feel free to contact DRI Cares Chair Rebecca Nickelson, Vice Chair James Craven, Foundation Vice-President Jodi Terranova, or Foundation President Matt Keris if you need an idea or have a planning question.

The goal of the Foundation is to better support and bring awareness to the wellness, philanthropic and charitable efforts of defense lawyers across the country. The International Day of Service is one of the first steps the Foundation is taking to expand, better coordinate, and streamline the holistic betterment of the civil defense bar. We welcome you to be a part of this exciting first step.

Please complete a short form with the name of your organization, your service project, the date of your project, and the contact person for your organization. By later this summer, our Regional Directors will begin asking our state leaders for information on the service projects being considered. DRI will follow up with you in November to request a short article and picture of your service project, which may be publicized in DRI’s publications and on social media.