LAW FIRM NEWS

Wednesday - June 25, 2008
5:00 PM to 7:30 PM - Welcome Reception at the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum

Thursday - June 26, 2008
7:45-8:30 AM - Registration and Continental Breakfast

8:30-8:45 - Welcome and opening remarks

8:45-9:30 - Settlement Strategies and Negotiations - Including "Don't Darken our doorstep"
                    provisions in Settlement Agreements - A Panel discussion including all Members of
                    the Defense Team.

9:30-10:30 - Psychiatric Disability: Myths, Realities and Everything In Between.
                      Mark Rubinstein, M.D.

10:30-10:45 - Break

10:45-11:15 - Medicare Update! - The 2007 Amendments & The Interrelationship between the                         MSP Contractors (COBC, WCRC & MSPRC) and how to Navigate b/w them in
                        resolving set-aside issues. Thomas R. Hatchfield - Centers forMedicare and
                        Medicaid Services

11:15-12:00 - Individual Break out sessions by state

12:00-1:00 - Lunch - Fraud Issues, Assistant State's Attorney Michael J. Sullivan of the State of
                      Connecticut Fraud Division, John McGoldrick - The Hartford Insurance Group

1:00-2:00 - To Cut or not to Cut? That is the Question - The Necessity of Spinal Surgery.
                    William H. Druckemiller, M.D.

2:00-2:30 - Controlling Counsel and Claim Handler from the Employer's perspective - The
                    Defense Team working together! [Panel Discussion]

2:30-3:30 - Workers' Compensation Jeopardy Game

3:30-5:00 - Cocktail Reception - Meet and greet speakers.

Federal Insurance Co. v. Westurn Cedar Supply, Inc., United States District Court, District of Minnesota, filed March 13, 2008. "In April 2004, fire destroyed a house that Lecy Construction, Inc. ( Lecy') was building for the Sedley family in Minnetonka, Minnesota. Plaintiff Federal Insurance Co. ( Federal'), Lecy's insurer, paid the Sedleys for the loss. Federal contends that the fire was caused by the negligence of defendant Westurn Cedar Supply, Inc. ( Westurn') or someone working for Westurn. Federal, as Lecy's subrogee, brings this suit to recover from Westurn what Federal paid to the Sedleys. Westurn moves for summary judgment." "Westurn argues that because Tulkki was not Westurn's employee, but at best a subcontractor, i.e., perhaps merely a meddling interloper,' Westurn cannot be held liable for damages resulting from Tulkki's negligence. . . . Westurn is incorrect." "Under Minnesota law, a party who hires an independent contractor is not, as a general matter, liable for the negligence of that independent contractor. . . . But there are so many exceptions to this general rule that seventy years ago the Minnesota Supreme Court was already warning that it would be proper to say that the rule is now primarily important as a preamble to the catalog of its exceptions.' . . . [I]n Kenny Boiler, the Minnesota Supreme Court established that contractors (here, Westurn) are liable to those who hire them (here, Lecy) for the negligent actions of their subcontractors (here, Tulkki)."

McIntosh County Bank, et al. v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Minnesota Supreme Court, filed March 6, 2008. The rule of law announced in Marker v. Greenberg, 313 N.W.2d 4 (Minn. 1981), is affirmed. In order for a party to proceed in a legal malpractice action, that party must be a direct and intended beneficiary of the attorney's services. A third party is a direct and intended beneficiary of an attorney-client relationship if a transaction has as a central purpose an effect on that party, the client intends the effect as a purpose of the transaction, and the lawyer is aware of the client's intent to benefit that party. An implied contract for legal services does not exist between an attorney and a party if the attorney is unaware of the party's identity, there are no communications between the attorney and that party, and there is no notice to the attorney that he or she is expected to represent the party.

Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc. v. Great West Casualty Company, United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit Court, filed February 28, 2008. District court did not err in finding that the insurance policy defendant issued to plaintiff covered a lessee of plaintiff's trailer as the lessee was permissibly operating plaintiff's covered vehicle and none of the exclusions cited by plaintiff precluded coverage; insurer did not breach its fiduciary duty to plaintiff when, despite plaintiff's objections, it accepted coverage and settled a claim arising from the accident in question, thereby triggering plaintiff's obligation to pay $500,000 under the Retention provision of the policy.

David A. Anderson v. Xcel Energy, et al., Minnesota Supreme Court, filed February 5, 2008. Substantial evidence, including the employee's testimony, expert medical opinion and medical records, supports the compensation judge's findings that the employee's 1982 work injury was causally related to his disability in 2005 and his need for claimed medical treatment related to his low back. Substantial evidence, including adequately founded expert medical opinion, medical records and the employee's testimony, provides support for the compensation judge's findings that the employee sustained Gillette injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine, culminating on January 1, 2005. Provision of notice of claimed Gillette injuries within 180 days of receipt of a medical opinion, in which the employee's treating physician stated that the employee had sustained Gillette injuries as a result of his work activities, constituted sufficient notice to the employer.

Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Star Windshield Repair, Inc., Minnesota Court of Appeals, filed January 8, 2008. The Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 65B.41-.71 (2006 & Supp. 2007), allows the district court to determine coverage issues before compelling arbitration. A non-assignment clause in an insurance policy may prohibit the assignment of post-loss insurance proceeds.

Jonathan Aten v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, Filed January 8, 2008. Case remanded for further proceedings on the question of whether an exception to the policy exclusion provisions applied.

• Check spelling;
• Use multiple and similar words;
• Use appropriate capitalization;
• Use quote marks with phrases;
• Use "boolean" operatives;
• Use field searches.