09/13/01: EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 113.7
New York Governor Suspends Statutes of Limitations
In the wake of the attack on the World Trade Center, New York’s Governor Pataki issued an Executive Order temporarily suspending all statutes of limitations on civil and criminal judicial proceedings and deadlines for filing appeals in the State of New York from September 11, 2001 until further notice.
09/07/01: RODREICK v. ESTATE OF WIKOFF
Kansas Court of Appeals
How Long is 100 Miles? People Aren't Crows
Issue is whether court should have allowed testimony of witness to be read into evidence or should have compelled witness to be present to give testimony. Under K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-232(a)(3)(B), a deposition may be substituted for testimony if the witness would be forced to travel more than 100 miles to the place of trial and not 100 straight-line miles. Wikoff filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude Dr. Brown's deposition. Along with the motion in limine, Wikoff submitted an affidavit by his own expert which maintained that the straight-line distance between Dr. Brown's location in Wichita and the courthouse in Great Bend was just over 95 miles. Wikoff argued that since Brown lived less than 100 miles from the site of the trial, he should be compelled to testify in person. The Rodreicks responded to the motion, arguing that Dr. Brown would be forced to travel 114 miles by road to reach the place of trial and, therefore, should be considered unavailable, and urged the trial court to deny the motion. Human beings travel not as the crow does but by means of transportation. A trial court's examination of the most recent official travel map published by the Kansas Department of Transportation is a reasonable and effective way of solving such disputes.
09/03/01: HOWARD v. CORNERSTONE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES
Supreme Court of Tennessee
"Coming and Going" Rule Applies to Bar Workers Comp Claim by Physician Going to One of Two Offices at which He Worked
In this workers' compensation case, the employee sustained injuries in an automobile accident while traveling to one of two nursing homes at which he worked as medical director pursuant to his employment contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that the employee's injuries did not occur in the course of his employment. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reversed the trial court's decision, held that the injuries were compensable, and remanded the case for a determination of benefits. High court disagrees with the Panel's recommendation and affirms the trial court's judgment. Under "Coming and Going Rule" Employee cannot recover benefits for travel to work -- even if traveling to one of two locations to which he is assigned.
Hurwitz & Fine, P.C. is a
full-service law firm
providing legal services throughout the State of New York.
Kevin T. Merriman
Phyliss A. Hafner
Fire, First Party & Subrogation Team
Gauthier, Team Leader
Donna L. Burden
Jody E. Briandi
© COPYRIGHT 2001 Hurwitz & Fine, P.C., ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.