<?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>Patterson Harkavy LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pathlaw.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pathlaw.com</link>
	<description>North Carolina Lawyers • Statewide • Raleigh • Chapel Hill • Greensboro • Charlotte</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:40:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>DC Circuit Restricts Scope of Lilly Ledbetter Act</title>
		<link>http://pathlaw.com/2010/03/dc-circuit-restricts-scope-of-lilly-ledbetter-act/</link>
		<comments>http://pathlaw.com/2010/03/dc-circuit-restricts-scope-of-lilly-ledbetter-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:40:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Narendra Ghosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judicial Decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADEA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor and Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statute of Limitations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pathlaw.com/?p=1133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision last month, in Shuler v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, sharply restricting the scope of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which President Obama signed into law soon after entering office.  The Fair Pay Act extends the timely filing deadlines for certain discriminatory employment actions, specifically those involving &#8220;discrimination [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision last month, in <a href="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201002/08-7115-1230109.pdf">Shuler v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers</a>, sharply restricting the scope of the <a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa_ledbetter.cfm">Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act</a>, which President Obama signed into law soon after entering office.  The Fair Pay Act extends the timely filing deadlines for certain discriminatory employment actions, specifically those involving &#8220;<a href="/practice-areas/discrimination-sexual-harassment/" title="" >discrimination</a> in compensation.&#8221;  The case involved a plaintiff who was denied a promotion in 1999 and 2000 and who claimed that those decisions, which were made because of age discrimination, had continuing effects on his compensation because the promotions would have come with raises.  With little analysis, the Court held that &#8220;discrimination in compensation&#8221; means &#8220;paying different wages or providing different benefits to similarly situated employees, not promoting one employee but not another to a more remunerative position.&#8221;  A close reading of the statute&#8217;s language, purpose, and legislative history might challenge the Court&#8217;s conclusion, and hopefully other courts will consider the question more carefully.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pathlaw.com/2010/03/dc-circuit-restricts-scope-of-lilly-ledbetter-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NC Court of Appeals on Line Between Medical Malpractice and Ordinary Negligence</title>
		<link>http://pathlaw.com/2010/03/nc-court-of-appeals-on-line-between-medical-malpractice-and-ordinary-negligence/</link>
		<comments>http://pathlaw.com/2010/03/nc-court-of-appeals-on-line-between-medical-malpractice-and-ordinary-negligence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:27:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Narendra Ghosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judicial Decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NC Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injuries]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pathlaw.com/?p=1130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an opinion on February 16, in Deal v. Frye Regional Medical Center, addressing the line between medical malpractice cases and ordinary negligence cases.  There are special requirements on plaintiffs who file malpractice claims, unlike negligence claims, so the line is important.  In this case, the decedent had been [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an opinion on February 16, in <a href="http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2010/unpub/090873-1.pdf">Deal v. Frye Regional Medical Center</a>, addressing the line between <a href="/practice-areas/medical-malpractice/" title="" >medical malpractice</a> cases and ordinary negligence cases.  There are special requirements on plaintiffs who file malpractice claims, unlike negligence claims, so the line is important.  In this case, the decedent had been admitted and was being cared for because of a heart attack and other problems.  During his stay, however, the nurses failed to conduct a Fall Risk Screen Assessment (“FRSA”) and failed to implement a fall risk safety policy to protect decedent from falling.  Subsequently, the decedent fell out of his hospital bed and fractured his right hip, which required surgery and rehabilitation.  The Court held that the potential negligence here &#8212; the failure to conduct the FRSA &#8212; was a professional activity of the nurses, involving clinical judgment, and therefore made the claim one of medical malpractice, not just negligence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pathlaw.com/2010/03/nc-court-of-appeals-on-line-between-medical-malpractice-and-ordinary-negligence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Republican Senator Blocking Unemployment and COBRA Benefits</title>
		<link>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/republican-senator-blocking-unemployment-and-cobra-benefits/</link>
		<comments>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/republican-senator-blocking-unemployment-and-cobra-benefits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:22:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Narendra Ghosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legislative Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[COBRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor and Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment Benefits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pathlaw.com/?p=1127</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Inexplicably, Republican Senator Jim Bunning has held up a much-needed extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits.  Bunning has single-handily blocked a vote on a 30-day extension by being the only senator to oppose a unanimous consent motion to vote on the bill, which was passed earlier by the House. The extended benefits are scheduled to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Inexplicably, Republican Senator Jim Bunning has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/us/27cong.html">held up a much-needed extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits</a>.  Bunning has single-handily blocked a vote on a 30-day extension by being the only senator to oppose a unanimous consent motion to vote on the bill, which was passed earlier by the House. The extended benefits are scheduled to expire today.  Thousands may lose benefits because of Bunning &#8212; how many depending on how quickly Democrats can force a vote on the bill.  This callous disregard of the needs of working class Americans is outrageous, as are Senate rules which allow a single Senator to hold up such essential legislation.</p>
<p>The stress of losing a job is hard enough, and has been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25stress.html">shown to create adverse health effects</a>, but the least the government can do is provide unemployment benefits in a timely manner.  More coverage <a href="http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/02/26/bunning-to-jobless-workers-tough-s_-_-_/">here</a> and <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/jim_bunnings_campaign_to_end_t.html">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/republican-senator-blocking-unemployment-and-cobra-benefits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brief Filed for Police Officer in Workers&#8217; Compensation Appeal</title>
		<link>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/brief-filed-for-police-office-in-workers-compensation-appeal/</link>
		<comments>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/brief-filed-for-police-office-in-workers-compensation-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:26:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Narendra Ghosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News of the Firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Narendra Ghosh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NC Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police Officers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Valerie Johnson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pathlaw.com/?p=1116</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Taylor v. Town of Garner, we have filed this brief with the North Carolina Court of Appeals in this workers&#8217; compensation case.  Officer Taylor in a veteran of the Garner police force who was injured while providing official inter-agency assistance at an N.C. State football game.  The primary issue is whether the Town of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In Taylor v. Town of Garner, we have filed <a href="/wp-content/uploads/Final-COA-Brief.pdf">this brief</a> with the North Carolina Court of Appeals in this <a href="/practice-areas/workers-compensation/" title="" >workers&#8217; compensation</a> case.  Officer Taylor in a veteran of the Garner police force who was injured while providing official inter-agency assistance at an N.C. State football game.  The primary issue is whether the Town of Garner is solely liable for Officer Taylor&#8217;s compensation, or whether both Garner and N.C. State are liable.  Garner should be liable because Office Taylor was working at N.C. State pursuant to an official mutual aid and assistance agreement between Garner and N.C. State.  <a href="/staff/valerie-a-johnson/" title="" >Valerie Johnson</a> and <a href="/staff/narendra-k-ghosh/" title="" >Narendra Ghosh</a> are representing Officer Taylor.</p>
<p><span id="more-1116"></span>Here is the summary of our argument to the Court:</p>
<p>&#8220;As the Industrial Commission concluded, the Town of Garner is solely liable for plaintiff’s compensable injury under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-288 because it occurred during official cooperation between law enforcement agencies, pursuant to a mutual aid agreement.  Everyone involved, including Garner’s Chief of Police, understood the necessity of the mutual aid agreement for plaintiff’s law enforcement work at N.C.  State, and intended that his work fall under the agreement.  Having encouraged plaintiff to establish the mounted patrol unit and work at N.C. State football games, Garner cannot now reverse course, repudiate its actions, and claim that plaintiff is not entitled to benefits based on an untenable reading of the mutual aid statute.</p>
<p>In the alternative, if N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-288 does not apply, the Court should conclude that Garner and N.C. State are jointly responsible for plaintiff’s compensable injury as joint employers.  Because plaintiff’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment with both employer-defendants, they are jointly liable for his compensable injury.  Under either theory, plaintiff must be compensated for his workplace injury at the maximum workers’ compensation rate.</p>
<p>Plaintiff, a nineteen-year veteran of the Garner police force, suffered an admittedly compensable injury by accident, but has still not received any benefits <span style="text-decoration: underline;">almost two years after he returned to work</span>. Garner’s continuing refusal to pay a clearly compensable claim is unconscionable. The Industrial Commission properly rejected Garner’s arguments.  This Court should reach the same conclusion.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/brief-filed-for-police-office-in-workers-compensation-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Burton Chairs Ethics CLE</title>
		<link>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/burton-chairs-ethics-cle/</link>
		<comments>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/burton-chairs-ethics-cle/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:28:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Narendra Ghosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News of the Firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burton Craige]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NCAJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Presentation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pathlaw.com/?p=1119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Burton Craige was the Program Chair for today&#8217;s CLE on 2010 Ethics Hot Topics, presented by the North Carolina Advocates for Justice.  Topics included the ethical considerations in dealing with child witnesses, attorneys&#8217; websites and advertising, and contacting the employees of companies in a lawsuit.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="/staff/burton-craige/" title="" >Burton Craige</a> was the Program Chair for today&#8217;s CLE on 2010 Ethics Hot Topics, presented by the North Carolina Advocates for Justice.  Topics included the ethical considerations in dealing with child witnesses, attorneys&#8217; websites and advertising, and contacting the employees of companies in a lawsuit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/burton-chairs-ethics-cle/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fourth Circuit Affirms Sexual Harassment Verdict</title>
		<link>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/fourth-circuit-affirms-sexual-harassment-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/fourth-circuit-affirms-sexual-harassment-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:35:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Narendra Ghosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judicial Decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourth Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor and Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Punitive Damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexual Harassment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Title VII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pathlaw.com/?p=1110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In King v. McMillan, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict and the court&#8217;s rulings in a sexual harassment case.  The plaintiff, a former deputy in a sheriff&#8217;s office, had been sexually harassed by the sheriff over several years.   A jury awarded her compensatory and punitive damages on her claims of battery and sexual harassment [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In <a href="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081667.P.pdf">King v. McMillan</a>, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict and the court&#8217;s rulings in a <a href="/practice-areas/discrimination-sexual-harassment/" title="" >sexual harassment</a> case.  The plaintiff, a former deputy in a sheriff&#8217;s office, had been sexually harassed by the sheriff over several years.   A jury awarded her compensatory and punitive damages on her claims of battery and sexual harassment under Title VII.  The Court upheld the awards, the substitution of the correct defendant, and the admission of testimony of other female employees who had been sexually harassed by the same sheriff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/fourth-circuit-affirms-sexual-harassment-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Leto Profiled in NC Super Lawyers Magazine</title>
		<link>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/leto-profiled-in-nc-super-lawyers-magazine/</link>
		<comments>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/leto-profiled-in-nc-super-lawyers-magazine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:02:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Narendra Ghosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News of the Firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leto Copeley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Recognition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Super Lawyers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pathlaw.com/?p=1105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Check out this profile of Leto Copeley, entitled &#8220;The Interpreter&#8221; in the February 2010 edition of the North  Carolina Super Lawyers magazine.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Check out this profile of <a href="/staff/leto-copeley/" title="" >Leto Copeley</a>, entitled &#8220;<a href="http://www.superlawyers.com/north-carolina/article/The-Interpreter/e0ef2e9e-a47a-4716-ad51-941a5fb71a67.html">The Interpreter</a>&#8221; in the February 2010 edition of the <em>North  Carolina Super Lawyers</em> magazine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/leto-profiled-in-nc-super-lawyers-magazine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patterson Harkavy Supporting N.C. ACLU&#8217;s Annual Dinner</title>
		<link>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/patterson-harkavy-supporting-n-c-aclus-annual-dinner/</link>
		<comments>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/patterson-harkavy-supporting-n-c-aclus-annual-dinner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:07:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Narendra Ghosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News of the Firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frank Porter Graham Ceremony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NC ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patterson Harkavy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pathlaw.com/?p=1108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patterson Harkavy is a sponsor at tonight&#8217;s 41st Annual Frank Porter Graham Awards Ceremony, hosted by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation.  This year&#8217;s honorees are:
Frank Porter Graham Award &#8211; Jimmy Creech
ACLU of North Carolina Award &#8211; Juvencio Rocha Peralta
Paul Green Award &#8211; Jeremy Collins &#38; Charmaine Fuller Cooper
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patterson Harkavy is a sponsor at tonight&#8217;s <a href="http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/files/FPG_2010.pdf">41st Annual Frank Porter Graham Awards Ceremony</a>, hosted by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation.  This year&#8217;s honorees are:</p>
<p>Frank Porter Graham Award &#8211; <em>Jimmy Creech</em><br />
ACLU of North Carolina Award &#8211; <em>Juvencio Rocha Peralta</em><br />
Paul Green Award &#8211; <em>Jeremy Collins &amp; Charmaine Fuller Cooper</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/patterson-harkavy-supporting-n-c-aclus-annual-dinner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NC Court of Appeals&#8217; Latest Decisions on Workers&#8217; Compensation and Personal Injuries</title>
		<link>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/nc-court-of-appeals-latest-decisions-on-workers-compensation-and-personal-injuries/</link>
		<comments>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/nc-court-of-appeals-latest-decisions-on-workers-compensation-and-personal-injuries/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:48:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Narendra Ghosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judicial Decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bicycle Accidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Car Accident]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinchers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disability Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governmental Immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industrial Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Motions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injuries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pathlaw.com/?p=1099</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, the North Carolina Court of Appeals published four opinions concerns concerning workers&#8217; compensation and personal injury cases.  In Berardi v. Craven County Schools, the Court considered and described the Industrial Commission&#8217;s new process for expedited medical motions, which speed up resolution of medical treatment disputes in workers&#8217; compensation cases.  At issue was whether [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last week, the North Carolina Court of Appeals published four opinions concerns concerning <a href="/practice-areas/workers-compensation/" title="" >workers&#8217; compensation</a> and <a href="/practice-areas/personal-injury/" title="" >personal injury</a> cases.  In <a href="http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2010/pdf/090702-1.pdf">Berardi v. Craven County Schools</a>, the Court considered and described the Industrial Commission&#8217;s new process for expedited medical motions, which speed up resolution of medical treatment disputes in workers&#8217; compensation cases.  At issue was whether the employer could appeal a decision of the Commission granting one such motion.  The Court held that it could not because the order was interlocutory, i.e. it did not resolve all issues, the usual prerequisite for appeals.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2010/pdf/070269-2.pdf">Freeman v. Rothrock</a>, the North Carolina Supreme Court had sent the case back to the Court of Appeals after reversing it and rejecting the judicial creation of a bar to recovery of worker’s compensation benefits when an employee made misrepresentations at the time of hiring about his physical condition.  On remand, the Court addressed the other appealed issues from the Commission, and affirmed the Commission&#8217;s conclusions that the plaintiff is entitled to ongoing total disability benefits and that the employer is not entitled to a credit based on previous clinchers (settlements) with the plaintiff.</p>
<p><span id="more-1099"></span>In <a href="http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2010/pdf/090567-1.pdf">Beckles-Palomares v. Logan</a>, the Court addressed the City of Winston-Salem&#8217;s defense of governmental immunity, which arose out of an accident where an intoxicated driver struck and killed a seven-year-old boy riding his bicycle.  The plaintiff, the boy&#8217;s mother, brought claims against several parties, including the City for failing to keep the particular streets safe in various specific ways.  The Court rejected the City&#8217;s defense of immunity, concluding that the public duty doctrine only applies to law enforcement activities, and that the statutes at issue waived immunity.  The Court also rejected its defenses on summary judgment, allowing the plaintiff&#8217;s claims against the City to go to a jury.</p>
<p>Finally, in<a href="http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2010/pdf/090298-1.pdf"> Blackwell v. Hartley</a>, the Court addressed evidence provided by accident reconstruction experts.  In this case, plaintiff Blackwell was driving her car with her son, stopped at an intersection, checked traffic in both directions, entered the intersection, and her car was struck by Hatley&#8217;s pick-up truck.  One of the key disputes was whether Hartley was exceeding the speed limit, and whether plaintiff&#8217;s expert could testify about Hartley&#8217;s speed.  Although a recent law changed this rule, the Court held that for accidents occurring prior to December 1, 2006, an accident reconstruction expert cannot opine on the speed of a vehicle without observing the accident.  The Court also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff&#8217;s claims against the town where the accident took place, concluding that there was no evidence of negligence on the town&#8217;s part.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/nc-court-of-appeals-latest-decisions-on-workers-compensation-and-personal-injuries/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Improvements for Employer-Provided Health Insurance</title>
		<link>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/improvements-for-employer-provided-healthcare/</link>
		<comments>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/improvements-for-employer-provided-healthcare/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Narendra Ghosh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legislative Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative Rulemaking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor and Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MHPAEA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pathlaw.com/?p=1101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Obama administration proposed new rules recently that should improve insurance coverage of mental health care for more those fortunate to have medical insurance through their jobs.  The rules implement the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA). Under the rules, employers and group health plans generally [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/health/policy/30mental.html">Obama administration proposed new rules recently</a> that should improve insurance coverage of mental health care for more those fortunate to have medical insurance through their jobs.  The rules implement the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA). Under the rules, employers and group health plans generally cannot provide less coverage for mental health care than for the treatment of physical conditions.  More information is available from the <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/01/20100129a.html">Department of Health and Human Services</a>.</p>
<p>Of course, what millions of uninsured workers need right now is the healthcare reform bill that is stalled in Congress, so that everyone can get health insurance.  Even the bill the Senate passed would be a big step in the right direction, if only the House would just pass it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pathlaw.com/2010/02/improvements-for-employer-provided-healthcare/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.798 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2010-03-11 14:29:03 -->
