Tag Archive for: LLP

referee

Image via Wisconsin State Journal

Pat Anderson, a Madison basketball referee of 33 years, may never ref another game due to post-traumatic stress episodes and injuries caused to him earlier this year. On January 3, 2018, Anderson was reffing a UW-Rock Valley men’s basketball game, which they lost to UW-Waukesha, 80-76. After the game, former UW-Rock Valley coach, Jamal Mosely (41), and his son, J’shon Mosley (21) allegedly attacked Anderson in the hallway, punching and kicking him.

Jamal Mosley resigned as head coach on January 23, 2018. Both of the Mosleys were charged on January 30, 2018 in Waukesha County with battery and disorderly conduct. GTW Attorney, Robert Gingras, will be defending Anderson in his law suit against the Mosleys. “This type of conduct has to be stopped in its tracks,” said Gingras, “As a society we cannot tolerate a referee getting beaten up out in the hallway after a game.”

Medical Malpractice

Everyone makes mistakes. However, when a doctor commits an error, it can mean life or death for a patient. It also can mean the difference between a speedy recovery and years of chronic pain.

We put a lot of trust in medical professionals. They have specialized training and knowledge that the average person just does not have. But if that specialized training and knowledge is not used properly the results can be devastating. Medical errors, carelessness, and inattention can lead to medical malpractice claims.

What is Medical Malpractice?

A medical malpractice claim arises when someone is harmed because a mistake or omission is made by a medical professional. These situations are far more common than you might think. In fact, in 2016, a study indicated that medical errors are now the third-leading cause of death in the United States. They fall behind only heart disease and cancer.

While you usually think of a surgery error as something that would result in legal liability, most medical malpractice claims are more straightforward. In fact, the most common medical malpractice cases include:

  • Missed diagnosis or delayed diagnosis
  • Medication errors
  • Anesthesia errors
  • Childbirth injuries
  • Surgery errors are still widespread. They make up approximately one-third of all medical malpractice cases.

Proving Medical Malpractice

Generally, you must show the following to win a medical malpractice claim.

  1. There was a patient-provider relationship.
  2. The actions of the medical professional fell below the medical standard of care for that professional.
  3. The failure to meet the standard of care caused your injuries or damage.

Proving the first requirement is easy: if you were a patient of a medical professional, you meet this requirement. To prove the second two facts you need to have the testimony of a medical expert, a doctor practicing in the same field who will say your doctor breached the standard of care and hurt you.

Proving that your doctor did something wrong is rarely easy, however. Most doctors don’t want to testify that another doctor did something wrong. You generally will need a medical malpractice attorney who can help you prove your case.

Can I Sue?

Because of the complex nature of medical issues, it can be difficult to determine whether a medical professional made a mistake in your care. It may also take some time after the error is made for you to understand what really happened.

You must bring your medical malpractice claim within three years of the date of the injury. If there was a delay in realizing that there was an error, Wisconsin law allows the limit to be extended until one year after you realized you were harmed by a medical mistake up to a maximum of five years after the mistake.

The only way to really know whether you have a medical malpractice claim in Wisconsin is to talk to a lawyer. He or she will be able to examine the facts of your case and may even do some initial investigation. Then, the medical malpractice attorney will be able to explore your legal options with you. Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs, LLP can do just that—contact us to set up an appointment for a case evaluation.

Supreme Court Case

The Supreme Court of the United States heard Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 on February 28, 2018. That case addresses vital issues related to union-based collective bargaining. Those who observe the Supreme Court are predicting an anti-union decision. That type of decision could affect workers’ rights across the country.

It Started in Wisconsin…

In 2011 and 2012, Wisconsin signed anti-union legislation into law. In 2011, hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin residents took to the streets to protest the anti-union legislation. Teachers, workers, and friends occupied the state capital for as long as six weeks. The law affected workers’ abilities to belong to a union and the collective bargaining rights of these groups.

Wisconsin was a high-density union state compared to other states in the U.S. However, since the anti-union legislation in 2011, membership has faltered. In fact, membership is estimated to be down by one-third in most areas of the state.

AFSCME is a significant union in Wisconsin and other states. Experts predict that the scene in Wisconsin may be just a small preview of what is to come if Janus is decided the way that many close observers predict.

An Overview of Janus

Laws in 22 states, including Wisconsin before 2011, permit public unions to require employees who are not union members to pay “agency” or “fair share” dues. Although these other workers are not members of the union, they pay these fees based on the assumption that what the union has done will help all workers, regardless of whether they belong in the union. It corrects a “free-rider” problem and avoids potentially costly negotiations that would differentiate union workers from non-union workers.

Janus, a public employee who is not a member of a union, has challenged these fees in his Supreme Court case. He argues that being forced to pay these fees, which supports union activities that he does not support, violates his right to free speech under the First Amendment. He argues that by paying these fees, he is being forced to associate with the union and speak for it.

By deciding in Janus’s favor, the Supreme Court will effectively turn the remaining states who allow these fees into “Right-to-work” states—affecting at least five million more workers across the country.

The Effects of This Potential Change

Changing states to “right-to-work” states has been called a “union killer.” It will have serious and devastating implications for the working people in the United States. In Wisconsin, for example, changes such as public school closings, mass layoffs, and a decline in teacher compensation have been attributed to the anti-union legislation enacted in 2011.

Other losses, such as the closure of public libraries, parks, and colleges, also have ties to the anti-union legislature. Further, decreases in medical and food assistance to those living in poverty, opening the state to sand and metal mining, and preempting municipal labor and welfare laws are also part of the overall package. Changes to union laws will affect communities, networks, and various other social aspects of union life. Janus is more than just taking away power from unions—its “side effects” could be substantial, it will destroy the middle class as we knew it.

As a worker, you still have rights, even when the unions lose power.  Are you concerned about your rights in the workplace or the effects this anti-union case could cause? Talk to Wisconsin attorneys at Gingras, Cates & Wachs. We will fight for your employee rights whether you are affected by this Supreme Court case, or if you have been a victim of another type of employment dispute or discrimination.

 

 

Facebook-circled Facebook-circled
Linkedin-circled Linkedin-circled
Instagram Instagram
Youtube-play Youtube-play
Rss Rss
101 Putnam St
P.O. Box 390

Eau Claire, WI 54703

8150 Excelsior
Drive

Madison, WI 53717

219 N Milwaukee St
Suite 520

Milwaukee, WI 53202

Nationally Recognized Law Firm

Super Lawyers - profiles.superlawyers.com