A former patient at a Florida women's health provider told the U.S. Supreme Court there's no reason for the high court to hear the provider's appeal regarding the Federal Arbitration Act. Read the full article here.
The Florida Justice Association (FJA) is a state-wide voluntary association of thousands of attorneys concentrating on litigation in all areas of the law. The FJA has been involved as amicus curiae in hundreds of cases in the Florida appellate courts. In a recent case,Richard DeLisle v. Lorrillard Tobacco Co. & Hollingsworth & Vose Co., n/k/a R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; & Crane Co., DeLisle is seeking an appeal from the Supreme Court of Florida on his claims of developing mesothelioma from exposure to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. cigarette filters and Crane Co. gaskets. The FJA decided it was necessary to file as amicus in support of Petitioner, Richard DeLisle. This case is of interest to the FJA because the underlying decision of the Fourth District regarding the applicability of the Daubert Amendment contravenes the separation of powers guaranteed by the Florida Constitution. Bryan S. Gowdy filed the FJA's amicus curiae brief in support of the Petitioner on August 10, 2017.
Law 360 wrote an article on the issue, asking lawyer groups to weigh in on the mesothelioma appeal represented in Richard DeLisle'scase before the Supreme Court of Florida. To read the full article, click here, or visit their website here.
The Florida Justice Association (FJA) has recognized Jessie L. Harrell for her superior achievements in legal writing by honoring her with this year's S. Victor Tipton Award. The S. Victor Tipton Award is awarded for superior achievement in legal writing and is given in honor of S. Victor Tipton, Founder and Editor of the FJA's Journal®. For more on the FJA and Jessie's award recognition, click here.
The American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals filed an amici curiae brief in Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc. v. Charles et al., urging the Court to overturn its January decision because it compromises the effectiveness of the Patient Safety Act. Bryan Gowdy responded to Law 360, arguing that no case or controversy exists. Mr. Gowdy is unsure why so many amici are preparing briefs for a case that the United States Supreme Court would find unreviewable. To read the full Law360 article, click here.
Lualhati and Jose Crespo, represented by Creed & Gowdy, claim the May decision in Kindred Nursing Centers v. Clark should not affect the December decision on their medical malpractice case. Women's Care filed a motion to recall the mandate on July 3, 2017, as their second attempt for the high court to reexamine the case. Creed & Gowdy responded on July 10, 2017 arguing that the Court should not recall its mandate because the Kindred decision does not announce new law changing the outcome of this case and the Petitioner's argument concerning the FAA does not apply. To read the full Law360 article, click here.