Posts

David Betras: I’ve never filed a frivolous lawsuit…

/in , , , , , , /by

Medical MalpracticeFrivolous, adjective: not having any serious purpose or value.

My decades-long legal career has been filled with interesting cases, challenging litigation, and high-stakes trials. But in all my years as a member of the bar, there is one thing I have never done: file a frivolous lawsuit.

That makes me an anomaly in the eyes of the insurance industry, the American Medical Association, the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, and others who claim frivolous lawsuits filed by ambulance-chasing attorneys clog our courts, are responsible for skyrocketing insurance premiums and health care costs, force doctors to practice “defensive medicine” and generally make the world a horrible place to live.

At least that is what they say when they are pushing the passage of tort “reform” legislation that slams the courthouse door in the face of Americans seriously injured or killed because someone else was negligent or reckless.

Along with venting my resentment at having my life’s work denigrated and dismissed as frivolous, a number of things motivated me to once again note that restricting access to the civil justice system makes the world a more dangerous place for our families: The drive to enact tort reform laws is continuing unabated in state legislatures across the nation.

Iowa, Missouri, Texas and Florida, where I will soon be licensed to practice, are among the states attacking victim’s rights. Here in Ohio, an effort to reverse a Draconian cap on non-economic damages is being blocked by the special interest groups and Republicans who imposed the limit in 2004.

A new report issued by the Center for Law and Justice at New York Law School thoroughly debunks many of the myths obscuring the truth about medical malpractice in the U.S. This free-to-download, 172-page publication provides a comprehensive review of the latest statistics about litigation, cost, access to doctors, insurance and patient safety.

I found the following facts to be especially compelling:

  • Experts agree that when cases are filed, they are not “frivolous.” Among the experts is Victor Schwartz, General Counsel of the American Tort Reform Association who admitted in 2011 that “It is ‘rare or unusual’ for a plaintiff lawyer to bring a frivolous malpractice suit…”
  • Litigation and settlements enhance patient safety. Tort reform laws put patients at risk.
  • Neither “tort reforms” nor “caps on damages” lower insurance premiums for doctors.
  • Stripping away patients’ legal rights will not reduce health care costs and may actually increase them.

Finally, a case being litigated by our office underscores how serious and difficult our work is.

While I am unable to discuss the matter in detail, it involves a client who was horribly injured during a medical procedure some time ago. Since agreeing to represent the victim, we have devoted hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars to trial prep and gone toe-to-toe and face-to-face with insurers, defense attorneys and health care providers determined to trivialize our client’s life-altering, lifelong injuries.

Whenever I look at the photos of this client or the hundreds of others we have represented over the years I am reminded of the fact that “frivolous” is the last word that can be used to describe what we do.

The George Floyd murder trial: the justice system worked–this time…

/in , , , /by

Attorney David BetrasAs a criminal defense attorney, I watched with great interest the trial of the former Minneapolis police officer convicted of murdering George Floyd.

Here are my thoughts on the case that has mesmerized the nation and the world since May 25, 2020.

The visual evidence secured the conviction. Creating reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror is a defense attorney’s No. 1 task. In this case, the astounding amount of video and audio evidence available to the prosecution made that task extremely difficult if not virtually impossible.

The cellphone video of Mr. Floyd’s killing captured by Darnella Frazier combined with newly released police body camera footage painted a stark and irrefutable picture of the incident. The defense attorney would have lost all credibility with the jury if he had asked them to disbelieve what they were seeing with their own eyes and hearing with their own ears: the defendant’s knee squarely planted on Mr. Floyd’s neck, the look of utter disdain on the officer’s face, Mr. Floyd’s pleas for his life and the defendant’s derisive and snide replies.

The defense attorney could not afford to lose all credibility with the jurors because he needed at least one of them to buy into the arguments he made on his client’s behalf.

First, he claimed that Mr. Floyd died because of the drugs in his system and because of his diseased heart — rather than the knee on his neck. In the practice of  law, this is known as the principle of causation and it was a dead-end for the defense because the prosecution had effectively proven that “but for” the actions of the officer Mr. Floyd would still be alive.

Next, he contended that the members of the crowd who were begging for Mr. Floyd’s life were at fault because the defendant felt threatened and turned his attention away from the person he was obviously killing — even though he could clearly be heard talking to Mr. Floyd while he had him pinned to the ground.

Finally, he said the defendant’s use of force was justified because he could not control Mr. Floyd, a statement directly contradicted by both the video evidence and the numerous law enforcement officials and experts who testified the officer’s actions were excessive and unjustified.

The jury did its job. In an earlier column, I said I was confident extensive voir dire had yielded an impartial jury capable of reviewing the evidence and rendering a just verdict. I believe the diverse group of 12 men and women who sat in judgment of what is undoubtedly the case of the 21st century did exactly that.

The system worked — this time.

That outcome would have been tragic for Mr. Floyd’s family and our nation.

Can employers ‘out’ unvaccinated employees?

/in , , , , /by

Attorney David BetrasRecently one of our Facebook followers messaged us this important and interesting question:

“Can an employer ask workers if they have been vaccinated for COVID-19 and are they allowed to ‘out’ those who have and have not?”

Like most employment issues related to the pandemic, the answer to that straightforward question is complicated, multi-faceted, and evolving. But I am certainly willing to take a shot at responding.

I want to preface the discussion by reminding everyone of two critically important facts: First, employers are generally permitted to require all workers to be vaccinated. Second, workers who refuse may be disciplined and/or fired unless they are protected by a union contract, have a disability or object to getting a shot due to sincerely held religious beliefs.

Employers must offer people who fall into the latter two categories “reasonable accommodations” that will enable them to continue to work.

Now let us consider whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) permits employers to ask workers if they have been vaccinated. According to guidance issued late last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the answer is yes as long as inquiry does not elicit information about a disability that would trigger the ADA’s requirement that all inquiries be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

Tip for employers: You do not want to do that.

To avoid running afoul of the ADA, employers should do the following when requesting vaccination information:

• Design the request so it is not likely to elicit information about a disability;
• Do not ask why a worker was not vaccinated;
• Warn employees not to provide any medical information when providing proof of vaccination.

Employers also have the right to ask for any number of reasons: to verify compliance with a vaccine mandate; prove that an employee has qualified for a vaccination incentive; to determine if an employee can return to work on-site; to comply with a customer’s demands that a vendor’s workforce has been vaccinated; or to inform the public that workers at a restaurant, store or other type of business that involves interaction with patrons have received their shots.

In fact, I can envision “Guaranteed COVID-19 Free” becoming a popular advertising slogan in the months ahead.

Now that we have a basic understanding of what employers may do, it is time to address what they may not do: They cannot “out” or identify workers who have or have not been vaccinated.

While it is generally legal to ask the question, it may be considered a medical inquiry which would make each employee’s response confidential medical information protected under statutory and common law. The law also obliges employers to protect workers’ personal and health information including their vaccination status.

I urge employers to take all steps necessary to meet that obligation.

As I mentioned at the beginning of the column, COVID-19 employment law is evolving rapidly so businesses and workers should protect themselves by keeping up to date with their rights and obligations.

While the pandemic is, hopefully, coming to an end, it may take years to resolve the legal issues and lawsuits it has spawned. I will do my best to keep my readers informed.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS | Can a worker be fired for refusing to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

/in , , , /by

Attorney David BetrasNews about the approval of COVID-19 vaccines has raised two things: hope that the pandemic will end in the not too distant future and lots of questions including the one I’ve been asked most: Can a worker be fired if their employer requires them to be vaccinated and they refuse?

The answer is, with limited exceptions, “yes.”  That’s because in “will-to-work” states like Ohio employees can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. Your boss doesn’t like the way you said “hello” when you walked in? You’re gone. Won’t be vaccinated? Hasta la vista baby, you’re out of there.

Professor Dorit Reiss of the University of California Hastings College of Law puts it succinctly: “Requiring a vaccine is a health and safety work rule, and employers can do that.” And they can show workers the door for failing to abide by the rule.

Some people have reacted with surprise and anger when told they can be canned for refusing to be vaccinated. “I’ll sue,” they say emphatically. “Forcing me to have that needle stuck in my arm violates my Constitutional rights!”

Well, not so much.

What most folks don’t know is that workplace vaccination requirements aren’t new and they passed Constitutional muster long ago. The health care industry provides a prime example. State and federal courts have repeatedly ruled providers can compel workers to be immunized against the flu and numerous other diseases. Don’t want to do it? That’s cool. Turn in your stethoscope, take off your lab coat, and don’t let the door hit you in the posterior on your way to a new career.

Doctor holding vial of Covid vaccineAbout the exceptions, I mentioned earlier. They exist, but they are incredibly difficult to secure.  Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employers must make “reasonable accommodations” for workers who object to being immunized due to their “sincerely held” religious beliefs. Here’s a tip: personal or ethical objections like those harbored by members of the “anti-vax” movement generally won’t qualify as a religious belief.

In addition, people whose medical conditions could be worsened or impacted by the COVID-19 vaccine may use the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to force employers to make exceptions to a vaccine work rule. Here are some important points to ponder before seeking an exemption under these federal laws: the burden of proof falls squarely on the employee seeking the exemption, reasonable accommodations must not create an undue burden on employers, and in almost all instances the ADA’s “direct threat standard” trumps the reasonable accommodation rule. Oh, and you’re most likely going to need an attorney to assist in the process.

Finally, here’s the question that follows the question about vaccination requirements: If I’m fired for refusing to be immunized, will I be eligible for unemployment compensation (UC)? While the rules related to COVID-19 are unsettled, workers terminated for violating existing immunization mandates generally do not qualify for UC.

That’s another factor to consider as you decide whether or not to roll up your sleeve when the vaccine comes to a neighborhood near you.

Complex deliberative process, legal doctrines drive Supreme Court rulings in controversial cases

/in , , /by

Attorney David BetrasThis week the U.S. Supreme Court handed down decisions in two closely watched controversial cases: June Medical Services LLC. et al. V. Russo and Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Along with being among the most highly anticipated rulings of the term, the opinions in the cases provided valuable insight into both the intricacies of the Court’s deliberative process and two legal precedents, stare decisis and severability, that played a critical role in the outcome and future impact of both cases.

Because the justices discuss and vote on cases in secret, most people have a simplistic view of their decision-making process which, in reality, is extremely complex. The nine members of the Court don’t sit around a table, consider the arguments and issue a ruling when five or more members side with the plaintiffs or the defendants. Discussions go on for months. Memos fly back and forth. Clerks argue with their justices. Positions change. Votes change until a solid majority in favor of an outcome emerges. This is an important point: justices only have to agree on how they are ruling, not on why. The same holds true for dissents.

The decision in June Medical v. Russo illustrates this point of law. The five justices who held that Louisiana’s law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals is unconstitutional did so for different reasons. The Court’s four liberals, led by Justice Steven Bryer based their ruling on the fact that Louisiana’s law, like a nearly identical Texas statute struck down in 2016, put an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the fifth vote in the case, based his concurrence on the doctrine of “stare decisis” which means “to stand by things decided.” This doctrine obligates courts, including the Supreme Court, to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar matter. Ironically, Roberts had voted to uphold the Texas law in 2016, but his respect for precedent proved more compelling than his opposition to abortion.

Seila Law v. CFPB is also interesting and instructive. After being cited by the CFPB for ripping off thousands of homeowners in a mortgage scam, Seila Law filed suit against the agency alleging that its governance structure was unconstitutional and the Bureau should, therefore, be abolished. Not surprisingly, banks and big business interests who have sought to destroy the CFPB since it was created, filed briefs supporting Seila’s position.

The Court’s five conservative justices, including Roberts, agreed with the plaintiffs but only in part due to the doctrine of severability which states that if a provision of a piece of legislation is found to be illegal the remainder of the law may remain in effect. In this case, the majority rejected the agency’s governance structure but said it could continue to operate. This means that although Seila won the battle on its primary contention, it lost the war against the CFPB because the ruling protects the agency from future constitutional challenges–an outcome that clearly illustrates the way in which the doctrine of unintended consequences can really be a punch in the gut.

Betras, Kopp & Harshman is open, law firm will launch free, online Covid-19 legal clinic on Wednesday, March 25

/in , , , /by

Betras, Kopp & Harshman Managing Partner David Betras announced today that the law firm, which has been designated an “essential business” under the Stay at Home Order issued March 22 by the Ohio Department of Health will remain open during the Covid-19 crisis. You may view the order here: DirectorsOrderStayAtHome

Attorney Betras also announced that as a public service, BKH will, for the duration of the emergency, conduct free, live Covid-19 legal clinics every Wednesday morning from 9:00 A.M to 11:00 A.M. via Facebook Live. “This is a confusing and frightening time,” he said. “We know people here in the Valley and across Ohio have lots of questions related to their jobs, health care, and finances. We’re going to do our best to answer their questions and provide sound advice that will help them cope with the crisis.”

The free clinics will be broadcast and archived on the firm’s Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/BetrasKoppandHarshman. Questions may be submitted during the broadcast via Facebook messenger, by calling 330-746-8484, 800-457-2889, or via email to dbetras@tb5.ddf.myftpupload.com. The first session will be conducted on Wednesday, March 25.

Atty. Betras noted that BKH has established new protocols for in-person client meetings. “We will observe social distancing protocols at all times and the number of visitors who may be present in the office will be limited to ten or less,” he said. “We’re asking any client who has a previously scheduled appointment or may have a hearing or trial pending to confirm the day and time by calling 330-746-8484 or 800-487-2889.”

As an alternative to in-person meetings the firm’s attorneys and staff are prepared to conduct initial consultations, meetings, and conferences via telephone, Facetime, and/or Skype. “This situation is not going to prevent us from aggressively representing our clients. We’re prepared to take extraordinary measures to protect our clients during these extraordinary times,” Atty. Betras said.

TV Law is Easy, We Win the Tough Ones in the Real World

/in , , , , /by

Series featuring lawyers have been a staple on television since the first set flickered to life decades ago. Along with attracting millions of viewers, the shows shaped America’s perception of the criminal justice system. For instance, according to TV, crimes were committed, investigations conducted, and trials held in an hour, minus 14 minutes of commercials.

Winning on TV takes half-way decent acting and an hour. Winning a case in the real world takes years, knowledge, dedication and a highly skilled attorney like David Betras.

Those devoted to Perry Mason, the Defenders, Judd for the Defense, LA Law, the Defenders, or Matlock believed defendants would always be acquitted in the last five or ten minutes of the show—usually as the result of the real villain being unmasked in court. Fans of the various iterations of Law and Order know one thing for sure: the bad guy or guys are going down and then they’re going up the river—usually for decades.

After 34 years of practicing criminal law, I’ve learned one thing: the legal world portrayed on TV is a fantasy. First of all, it can take years to investigate a criminal case, research the applicable law, file briefs and motions, consider plea deals, and if necessary try the case in court.

Second, winning a criminal case is not anywhere near as easy as Perry Mason makes it seem. I’ve won hundreds, but each one has been a long, uphill battle waged against talented prosecutors who walk into court confident they have the evidence that will convict my client.

And, I can tell you from personal experience U.S. attorneys, who have all the resources of the federal government at their disposal, are the most confident of all. There may only be one or two lawyers from the Justice Department in court, but when I look over at the prosecution table, I see thousands of FBI/DEA/ATF agents, forensic experts with PhDs from Harvard and MIT, and an army of highly trained paralegals who do nothing but help the attorneys I’m facing prepare the government’s case. It’s an intimidating situation to say the least.

But even though Jack McCoy may win every time on TV, it is possible to mount a defense that results in the dismissal of the charges filed against my client or a “not guilty” verdict from a judge or jury. It’s important to note, however, that I’ve never achieved that outcome by cross-examining a witness so adroitly that they break down and confess to the crime while on the stand.

So what does it take to win? Hard work, knowledge of the law and how to apply it, a fair amount of theatrical skills, and total commitment to seeking and securing justice for my clients.

Here’s an example of how the legal system works in the real world.

In the early morning of June 1, 2016, Warren, Ohio police officers who had responded to a house alarm entered the home in question to investigate a burglary and shooting incident that had taken place at the residence. While walking through the home they noticed what they believed was evidence of narcotics trafficking. Based on that observation, the police obtained a warrant, searched the home and found drugs, drug paraphernalia, money, and loaded firearms.  I’m sure you won’t be shocked to learn that the homeowners were soon indicted and charged with a number of drug and firearms-related offenses.

So far so good, right?

Well, actually no, because after reviewing the facts and the law, I concluded that the police had violated my clients’ Fourth Amendment rights. Just about everyone is familiar with the First and

It may be the Fourth Amendment, but it is every bit as important as the First and Second…

Second Amendments, but believe me, the Fourth is just as important because it’s the one that protects all of us against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In light of the Fourth Amendment violations, I filed a motion in Federal Court to suppress the evidence in the case. Not surprisingly, the Justice Department opposed my motion. On August 7, 2019, more than three years after my clients were arrested, Federal Judge Christopher Boyko conducted an evidentiary hearing on the matter. On August 21, he issued this ruling:

Law enforcement did not have consent to enter the Residence a third time and process the scene for evidence related to the burglary and assault on police. And since police did not have a warrant, the third reentry was unreasonable and therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since Detective Gambill based her Affidavit for a search warrant on facts she uncovered during the third reentry, those facts must be excised from the Affidavit. Finally, the Government failed to establish by a preponderance that the evidence it seeks to introduce would have been inevitably discovered in a lawful manner. Thus, any evidence uncovered or learned about during Detective Laprocina’ s search of the Residence must be excluded. Defendants’ Motions to Suppress are GRANTED. You can read Judge Boyko’s order in its entirety here: Opinion and Order (002)

What does the decision prove?

It proves that cases can take years to work their way through the criminal justice system.

It proves that the government must play by the rules. Please don’t underestimate how important this is. As I noted earlier, the government possesses awesome power. If police and prosecutors abuse it by ignoring the Constitution they are undermining the rule of law, endangering the freedoms we hold dear, and placing all of us, including law-abiding citizens, in jeopardy.

It proves that a skilled, knowledgeable, experienced, and dedicated attorney can take on the federal government and prevail.

Victories like this, which demonstrate the fundamental strength and fairness of our judicial system, make me proud to be an American and an attorney.

And I have to admit, as I read Judge Boyko’s order, I could swear I heard the Perry Mason theme song playing softly in the background…

New York Times investigation: Breathalyzer test results can’t be trusted

/in , , , , , /by

Breathalyzer screenIt’s a tradition here in the Valley and across the country: every weekend people climb into their cars and drive to their favorite restaurants, bars, and nightclubs to eat, dance, hang out with friends and yes, drink.

Later in the evening some of those people will participate in another American tradition: taking a breathalyzer test after being pulled over by the police. It’s a bad way to end a great evening. That’s why we at Betras, Kopp & Harshman have a hard and fast rule about driving if you’ve had an alcoholic beverage or two or three or four:

DON’T DO IT.

Use a designated driver. Call Uber or Lyft. Get a ride from a friend or loved one. But please don’t drink and drive.

Unfortunately, as an in-depth investigation in the New York Times revealed, people who follow the rules are sometimes charged with OVI/DUI because the breathalyzers law enforcement uses to measure the blood alcohol level of people who are suspected of drunk driving aren’t reliable.

Here is the top takeaway from the investigation:

More than 1 million drivers a year are arrested for drunk driving, but the breath test technology supporting many of those arrests can be unreliable. Courts across the country have tossed out more than 50,000 tests in recent years because of problems with specific machines, errors made by police officers and mistakes by labs that set up and maintain the devices.

In the past year, more than 30,000 test results were thrown out by judges in Massachusetts and New Jersey. Other challenges are moving through the courts in states across the country. The machines used in Ohio are among those that have produced inaccurate results.

The Times notes that the machines are sensitive scientific instruments, but in many cases they haven’t been properly calibrated, yielding results that were at times 40 percent too high. Maintaining machines is up to police departments that sometimes have shoddy standards and lack expertise. In some cities, lab officials have used stale or home-brewed chemical solutions that warped results. In Massachusetts, officers used a machine with rats nesting inside.

We encourage you to read the shocking NYT report here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-breathalyzer.html

Man taking field sobriety testAlong with making a strong case that breathalyzer results cannot be trusted, the Times report also features profiles of people whose lives were nearly destroyed because they were wrongly convicted of OVI based on faulty test results. We don’t want Valley residents to suffer the same fate. If you are pulled over by the police or stopped at a DUI checkpoint, you have rights. Here’s how to protect them:

  1. Take advantage of your right to consult an attorney before submitting to a breathalyzer test. Inform the officer or officers who are administering the test that you want to speak to a lawyer before you take it. If you download the free Betraslaw app you will be able to contact a member of our legal team with one tap on the screen of your smartphone. You can download the app by searching for it in the App Store on Google play or by accessing the links we’ve posted at https://betraskopp.com/download-app/ and our Facebook page.
  2. To blow or not to blow? We’re asked this question often. But there is no blanket answer because the circumstances surrounding every case are different. That is why you should contact us before submitting to the test. In general, however, because failure to take the test will result in an automatic one-year suspension of your driver’s license you should take it, especially if you have never been charged with DUI before and you have not been involved in an accident.
  3. If you are charged with DUI/OVI hire experienced legal counsel. OVI is a serious offense that carries steep penalties. Attempting to represent yourself in an OVI case is, in a word, reckless. If you are convicted you will be fined, you could be sentenced to jail, you may lose your driving privileges for a long period of time, and you will be forced to pay incredibly high auto insurance premiums for a number of years. In addition, an OVI conviction could get you fired from your current job and may make it difficult to find another.                                                  Don’t face these consequences on your own. When you retain Betras, Kopp & Harshman to represent you we will be with you at your first hearing, ask the court to allow you to drive as your case works its way through the judicial system, investigate the circumstances surrounding your arrest, provide sound legal advice, and fight to obtain the best possible outcome, including a dismissal or acquittal.
  4. Is it possible to successfully defend a DUI in court? The answer is yes. Our experienced OVI/DUI Defense Team led by Atty. David Betras has represented thousands of clients charged with impaired driving. If we believe you should not have been arrested and charged we will use our expertise and knowledge of the law to have the charges dismissed or win an acquittal in court. That expertise includes challenging the results of breathalyzer tests which, as the NYT report notes, are not always reliable or accurate.

If you or someone you know has been charged with impaired driving, contact the Betras, Kopp & Harshman OVI/DUI Defense Team right away by calling 330-746-8484, 800-457-2889, or by using the Betraslaw app. We’re here to fight for you.

Legally Speaking on WFMJ Today: Fans suing NFL over blown calls

/in , , , , /by

In this episode of Legally Speaking on WFMJ Today, Managing Partner David Betras discusses the lawsuits filed against the NFL by fans distressed over the blown pass interference call that marred the 2018 NFC Championship game between the L.A. Rams and the New Orleans Saints.

You may view the segment on our YouTube channel or on the Betras, Kopp & Harshman Facebook page.

Federal suits have been dismissed, but a state court judge in Louisiana has allowed a suit filed in that state to move forward. David outlines whether or not the plaintiffs have a valid case.

One outgrowth of the bad call: pass interference can now be reviewed. According to a new rule implemented by NFL owners, offensive and defensive pass interference, including non-calls, will now subject to review. Coaches can challenge those calls in the first 28 minutes of each half.

Don’t forget, David and other members of the BKH team discuss the hottest legal topics on  WFMJ Today every Friday at 6:40 A.M. Don’t miss the interesting and informative segments.