<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Law Advice &#187; Injury</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lawadvice.ws/tag/injury/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws</link>
	<description>Lawful Advice for Legal Situations and Litigious Problems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:03:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Magistrate Judge: Prior Injury Made Workers&#8217; Comp Benefits Denial Reasonable</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/magistrate-judge-prior-injury-made-workers-comp-benefits-denial-reasonable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/magistrate-judge-prior-injury-made-workers-comp-benefits-denial-reasonable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:56:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Comp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[denial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Made]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magistrate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/magistrate-judge-prior-injury-made-workers-comp-benefits-denial-reasonable/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TYLER, Texas &#8211; Because an insurer&#8217;s denial of workers&#8217; compensation benefits was in line with a decision by the Texas Department of Insurance &#8211; Division of Workers&#8217; Compensation (DWC), a Texas federal magistrate judge on Jan. 31 found no support for an employee&#8217;s bad faith claims (Mark Parmer v. Travelers Indemnity Co., No. 6:11-cv-00311, E.D. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TYLER, Texas &#8211; Because an insurer&#8217;s denial of workers&#8217; compensation benefits was in line with a decision by the Texas Department of Insurance &#8211; Division of Workers&#8217; Compensation (DWC), a Texas federal magistrate judge on Jan. 31 found no support for an employee&#8217;s bad faith claims (Mark Parmer v. Travelers Indemnity Co., No. 6:11-cv-00311, E.D. Texas; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11474).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/Yq_BoR3pV4E" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/Yq_BoR3pV4E/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/magistrate-judge-prior-injury-made-workers-comp-benefits-denial-reasonable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Panel Creates MDL 2323, Consolidating Pro Football Concussion Injury Actions</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/panel-creates-mdl-2323-consolidating-pro-football-concussion-injury-actions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/panel-creates-mdl-2323-consolidating-pro-football-concussion-injury-actions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:07:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[23/23]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concussion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consolidating]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[creates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Football]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/panel-creates-mdl-2323-consolidating-pro-football-concussion-injury-actions/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. &#8211; The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Jan. 31 ordered the consolidation of personal injury cases brought against the National Football League (NFL) and football helmet manufacturers involving concussion injuries suffered by former football players (In re: National Football League Players&#8217; Concussion Injury Litigation, JPMDL, MDL No. 2323). View full post [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON, D.C. &#8211; The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Jan. 31 ordered the consolidation of personal injury cases brought against the National Football League (NFL) and football helmet manufacturers involving concussion injuries suffered by former football players (In re: National Football League Players&#8217; Concussion Injury Litigation, JPMDL, MDL No. 2323).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/0PWdbp8INto" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/0PWdbp8INto/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/panel-creates-mdl-2323-consolidating-pro-football-concussion-injury-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge: No &#8216;Bodily Injury&#8217; Claims In Class Action Suit Involving Diet Product</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-no-bodily-injury-claims-in-class-action-suit-involving-diet-product/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-no-bodily-injury-claims-in-class-action-suit-involving-diet-product/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:21:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bodily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Involving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Product]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-no-bodily-injury-claims-in-class-action-suit-involving-diet-product/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[DALLAS &#8211; An insurer has no duty to defend an underlying lawsuit against its insured because the underlying claimants did not seek damages because of &#8220;bodily injury&#8221; but instead sought recovery for their economic loss in purchasing a diet and nutritional product that allegedly failed to work, a Texas federal judge found Jan. 30 (CSA [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DALLAS &#8211; An insurer has no duty to defend an underlying lawsuit against its insured because the underlying claimants did not seek damages because of &#8220;bodily injury&#8221; but instead sought recovery for their economic loss in purchasing a diet and nutritional product that allegedly failed to work, a Texas federal judge found Jan. 30 (CSA Nutraceuticals GP LLC f/k/a CSA Nutraceuticals LLC v. Chubb Custom Insurance Co., No. 10-02155, N.D. Texas).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/2UKq7VfuyVI" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/2UKq7VfuyVI/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-no-bodily-injury-claims-in-class-action-suit-involving-diet-product/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tennessee Appeals Panel: Injury Claims Against Contractors Are Time-Barred</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/tennessee-appeals-panel-injury-claims-against-contractors-are-time-barred/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/tennessee-appeals-panel-injury-claims-against-contractors-are-time-barred/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 03:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[against]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contractors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TimeBarred]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/tennessee-appeals-panel-injury-claims-against-contractors-are-time-barred/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[JACKSON, Tenn. &#8211; The Tennessee Court of Appeals on Jan. 27 affirmed summary judgment for two construction contractors named as defendants in a premises liability action filed by the parents of a child injured in a church bathroom, agreeing that the claims were time-barred based upon the construction statute of repose (Christopher J. Etheridge, et [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JACKSON, Tenn. &#8211; The Tennessee Court of Appeals on Jan. 27 affirmed summary judgment for two construction contractors named as defendants in a premises liability action filed by the parents of a child injured in a church bathroom, agreeing that the claims were time-barred based upon the construction statute of repose (Christopher J. Etheridge, et al. v. YMCA of Jackson and West Tennessee, et al., No. W2011-00495-COA-R3-CV, Tenn. App.; 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 54).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/pyqWo9sxbF4" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/pyqWo9sxbF4/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/tennessee-appeals-panel-injury-claims-against-contractors-are-time-barred/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Welding Fume Injury Trial Continued Until July In Mississippi Federal Court</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/welding-fume-injury-trial-continued-until-july-in-mississippi-federal-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/welding-fume-injury-trial-continued-until-july-in-mississippi-federal-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Continued]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fume]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[July]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mississippi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Until]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Welding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/welding-fume-injury-trial-continued-until-july-in-mississippi-federal-court/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[GULFPORT, Miss. &#8211; The April 15 trial setting of a welding fumes products liability lawsuit transferred from the multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi was continued until July during a Jan. 23 status conference (Robert E. Jowers v. Lincoln Electric Co. et [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>GULFPORT, Miss. &#8211; The April 15 trial setting of a welding fumes products liability lawsuit transferred from the multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi was continued until July during a Jan. 23 status conference (Robert E. Jowers v. Lincoln Electric Co. et al., No. 08-36, S.D. Miss.).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/WwfJq3jKNSA" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/WwfJq3jKNSA/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/welding-fume-injury-trial-continued-until-july-in-mississippi-federal-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Appeals Panel: Trial Court Did Not Err By Barring Prior Injury Evidence</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/federal-appeals-panel-trial-court-did-not-err-by-barring-prior-injury-evidence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/federal-appeals-panel-trial-court-did-not-err-by-barring-prior-injury-evidence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:50:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EVIDENCE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/federal-appeals-panel-trial-court-did-not-err-by-barring-prior-injury-evidence/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ST. LOUIS &#8211; The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 20 affirmed a defense verdict for a retailer named as the defendant in a personal injury action, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying evidence regarding a prior accident that occurred on the defendant&#8217;s property (Bonnie Rodrick v. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ST. LOUIS &#8211; The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 20 affirmed a defense verdict for a retailer named as the defendant in a personal injury action, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying evidence regarding a prior accident that occurred on the defendant&#8217;s property (Bonnie Rodrick v. Wal-Mart Stores East L.P., No. 11-1085, 8th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1181).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/nbSvf_dz-rA" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/nbSvf_dz-rA/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/federal-appeals-panel-trial-court-did-not-err-by-barring-prior-injury-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Florida Supreme Court Reverses Dismissal Of Farm Tractor Injury Case</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/florida-supreme-court-reverses-dismissal-of-farm-tractor-injury-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/florida-supreme-court-reverses-dismissal-of-farm-tractor-injury-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:16:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Farm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reverses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tractor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/florida-supreme-court-reverses-dismissal-of-farm-tractor-injury-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TALLAHASSEE, Fla. &#8211; In a 5-2 decision reached Jan. 19, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a farm tractor is a &#8220;dangerous instrumentality,&#8221; overturning an appellate court decision upholding the dismissal of a personal injury action (James Earl Rippy v. James Shepard, No. SC09-1677, Fla. Sup.; 2012 Fla. LEXIS 73). View full post on LexisNexis® [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TALLAHASSEE, Fla. &#8211; In a 5-2 decision reached Jan. 19, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a farm tractor is a &#8220;dangerous instrumentality,&#8221; overturning an appellate court decision upholding the dismissal of a personal injury action (James Earl Rippy v. James Shepard, No. SC09-1677, Fla. Sup.; 2012 Fla. LEXIS 73).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/sww9S8etqcc" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/sww9S8etqcc/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/florida-supreme-court-reverses-dismissal-of-farm-tractor-injury-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Catastrophic Personal Injury Law Firm Fadduol, Cluff &amp; Hardy, PC Announces &#8230; &#8211; MarketWatch (press release)</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/catastrophic-personal-injury-law-firm-fadduol-cluff-hardy-pc-announces-marketwatch-press-release/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/catastrophic-personal-injury-law-firm-fadduol-cluff-hardy-pc-announces-marketwatch-press-release/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:13:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[announces]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catastrophic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cluff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fadduol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hardy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MarketWatch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[release]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/catastrophic-personal-injury-law-firm-fadduol-cluff-hardy-pc-announces-marketwatch-press-release/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Catastrophic Personal Injury Law Firm Fadduol, Cluff &#38; Hardy, PC Announces &#8230;MarketWatch (press release)The personal injury law firm of Fadduol, Cluff &#38; Hardy, PC has recently launched a new website to support victims of catastrophic personal injury in Texas and New Mexico. LUBBOCK, Texas, Jan. 24, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ &#8212; A Texas and New [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="7" style="vertical-align:top;">
<tr>
<td width="80" align="center" valign="top"><font style="font-size:85%;font-family:arial,sans-serif"></font></td>
<td valign="top" class="j"><font style="font-size:85%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">
<div style="padding-top:0.8em;"><img alt="" height="1" width="1" /></div>
<div class="lh"><a target="_blank" href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&amp;fd=R&amp;usg=AFQjCNFhz58xxQZuT2WhVNAzPPXuk72wVA&amp;url=http://www.marketwatch.com/story/catastrophic-personal-injury-law-firm-fadduol-cluff-hardy-pc-announces-site-launch-2012-01-24" ><b>Catastrophic Personal Injury <b>Law</b> Firm Fadduol, Cluff &amp; Hardy, PC Announces <b>&#8230;</b></b></a><br /><font size="-1"><b><font color="#6f6f6f">MarketWatch (press release)</font></b></font><br /><font size="-1">The personal injury <b>law</b> firm of Fadduol, Cluff &amp; Hardy, PC has recently launched a new website to support victims of catastrophic personal injury in Texas and New Mexico. LUBBOCK, Texas, Jan. 24, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ &#8212; A Texas and New Mexico <b>&#8230;</b></font><br /><font size="-1" class="p"></font><br /><font class="p" size="-1"><a target="_blank" href="http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&amp;ned=us&amp;ncl=dq7Cv4OQdYNeAGM" class="p" ><nobr><b>and more&nbsp;&raquo;</b></nobr></a></font></div>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&#038;fd=R&#038;usg=AFQjCNFhz58xxQZuT2WhVNAzPPXuk72wVA&#038;url=http://www.marketwatch.com/story/catastrophic-personal-injury-law-firm-fadduol-cluff-hardy-pc-announces-site-launch-2012-01-24" >law &#8211; Google News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/catastrophic-personal-injury-law-firm-fadduol-cluff-hardy-pc-announces-marketwatch-press-release/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Missouri Appeals Panel: Plaintiff&#8217;s Expert Improperly Excluded From Injury Case</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/missouri-appeals-panel-plaintiffs-expert-improperly-excluded-from-injury-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/missouri-appeals-panel-plaintiffs-expert-improperly-excluded-from-injury-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 05:15:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[excluded]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[from]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improperly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Missouri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plaintiff's]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/missouri-appeals-panel-plaintiffs-expert-improperly-excluded-from-injury-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ST. LOUIS &#8211; The Eastern District Missouri Court of Appeals on Jan. 17 overturned a defense verdict in a slip-and-fall injury action filed by a neurosurgeon who was injured while working at a hospital, concluding that the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony on the topic of properly transporting liquids in a medical center [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ST. LOUIS &#8211; The Eastern District Missouri Court of Appeals on Jan. 17 overturned a defense verdict in a slip-and-fall injury action filed by a neurosurgeon who was injured while working at a hospital, concluding that the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony on the topic of properly transporting liquids in a medical center setting (Dr. J. Alexander Marchosky v. St. Luke&#8217;s Health Corp., No. ED95992, Mo. App., E.D.; 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 35).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/8YSjkSNrlos" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/8YSjkSNrlos/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/missouri-appeals-panel-plaintiffs-expert-improperly-excluded-from-injury-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Collateral Source Rule Bars Admissibility Of Medicare Lien In Personal Injury Action</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/collateral-source-rule-bars-admissibility-of-medicare-lien-in-personal-injury-action/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/collateral-source-rule-bars-admissibility-of-medicare-lien-in-personal-injury-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:32:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admissibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Collateral]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lien]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Source]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/collateral-source-rule-bars-admissibility-of-medicare-lien-in-personal-injury-action/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[DENVER &#8211; A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Jan. 17 held that a plaintiff&#8217;s Medicare lien is inadmissible under the collateral source rule to show damages incurred in a personal injury lawsuit (Francisco Torres v. Commerce City Policy Officer Michael Kim, et al., No. 10-cv-01793, D. Colo.; [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DENVER &#8211; A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Jan. 17 held that a plaintiff&#8217;s Medicare lien is inadmissible under the collateral source rule to show damages incurred in a personal injury lawsuit (Francisco Torres v. Commerce City Policy Officer Michael Kim, et al., No. 10-cv-01793, D. Colo.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5142).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/R46pVk4mQ3w" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/R46pVk4mQ3w/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/collateral-source-rule-bars-admissibility-of-medicare-lien-in-personal-injury-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

