• Care Plus and its Entities Agree to Pay $7.2 Million Against Anti-Kickback Allegations

      On April 13, 2022, Care Plus Management, LLC (“Care Plus”), its founders Paul D. Weir and John R. Morgan, MD, along with eighteen other anesthesia entities which were owned and operated by Care Plus, agreed to pay a whopping amount of $7.2 million as consideration to resolve allegations which claimed that they entered into kickback arrangements with referring physicians. It was alleged that Care Plus and its entities did so in exchange for the referral of the physicians’ patients for anesthesia services. Also, Weir and Morgan shared the revenue received from anesthesia services with the referring physicians and provided subsidies on drug supplies and equipment to the referring physicians’ outpatient surgical centers. United States ex rel. Douglas, et al., v. Care Plus Management, LLC, et al., No. 1:16-cv-4439-WRM (N.D. Ga. Apr 13, 2022)

      It is seen that anesthesia providers usually depend on hospitals and outpatient surgery centers for their income. If an anesthesia provider is able to enter into an exclusive agreement with such centers, it is guaranteed a steady stream of patient referrals. Thus, anesthesia providers compete aggressively for these contracts.

      The U.S. Government alleged that between the years 2012 and 2016, Weir and Morgan, through Care Plus, appeased physician owners of outpatient surgery centers to award these exclusive service agreements to them by offering partial ownership in the entities owned and operated by Care Plus. Under the terms of this agreement, the physician owners received compensation in the form of a portion of the revenue from the anesthesia services. The Government also alleged that Weir, Morgan, Care Plus, and its anesthesia companies subsidized the cost incurred by surgery centers for drugs, supplies, and equipment in order to induce the physician owners of those centers to grant exclusive anesthesia service agreements to Care Plus’s anesthesia companies. 

      As per the Government allegations, the arrangements violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b), and caused the submission of false claims in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. The Anti-Kickback Statute is a criminal statute that prohibits an exchange or offers to exchange of anything of value, in consideration to the referral of business reimbursable by federal health care programs. While under the False Claims act, a private citizen may bring suit for false claims on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery obtained by the government.

      The original complaint filed in 2016 included more than fifty medical entities operating across several states and numerous unnamed individuals. However, the U.S. Government and the State of Georgia intervened only against the Care Plus Parties. This case was investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and the Georgia Attorney General’s Office Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. The settlement agreed upon by the parties resolved a lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act.

      Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legal, paralegal, and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, and corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

      Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality, and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

      Visit: www.draftnctaft.com | info@draftncraft.com | +1 6463676958 & 75

  • Copper Creek (Marysville) | Washington Court of Appeals on Effect of Bankruptcy Discharge on Statute of Limitations

      On April 11, 2022, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 granted the motion for reconsideration and withdrew its opinion dated January 18, 2022. Respondents had filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking reversal of summary judgment quieting title in favor of the Appellants (Copper Creek). Copper Creek (Marysville) Homeowners Ass’n v. Kurtz, No. 82083-4-I (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2022). The Court held that the trial court erred in determining that the statute of limitations rendered the respondents’ deed of trust unenforceable.

      As per the facts of the case, in 2007, Shawn and Stephanie Kurtz bought a real property with a note of $303,472.00 which was secured by a deed of trust. Shawn was engaged in active duty in the United States military at that time and continued with the same till September 2020. The purchased property was within the Copper Creek (Marysville) Homeowners Association and Shawn and Stephanie Kurtz were obligated to pay annual assessments of $400. However, in January 2008, Shawn and Stephanie separated and the latter moved out of the property. Thereafter, the Kurtez did not pay on the note in either 2008 or 2009. In 2010, Stephanie filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and included the property. On the debtor’s statement of intention, she noted the mortgage and her intention to surrender the property. She thereby received a discharge, which included the property. A year later, in 2011, Shawn filed a separate Chapter 7 bankruptcy and surrendered the property as well. He included Copper Creek as a creditor holding a secured claim for homeowner’s dues in the amount of $1,826.50. The bankruptcy was discharged after a few months.

      In 2008, Copper Creek recorded a notice of claim of lien against the property in the amount of $15,278.68 in assessments, fees, interest, and attorney fees and costs that had accrued on the property, and filed for judicial foreclosure to recover the delinquent assessments. In April 2019, Copper Creek and the Kurtzes entered an agreed order with the court for the appointment of a custodial receiver. Copper Creek recorded the order appointing the receiver with Snohomish County Superior Court. The receiver spent $22,470.24 rehabilitating the property and began renting it at a fair market value. After completion of the repairs, the Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington (QLS) tried to enforce the terms of the note as secured by the DOT through nonjudicial foreclosure which prompted Copper Creek to bring the action to quiet title.

      Upon refusal, Copper Creek filed a motion to restrain the sale, and a complaint against the Kurtzes, respondents, and QLS for lien foreclosure, restraint of the trustee sale, wrongful foreclosure, and quiet title. It then filed a motion for summary judgment. The same was opposed by the respondents and a motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed. The trial court concluded that the SCRA tolling provision did not apply to the foreclosure action, which allowed the statute of limitations to run on the DOT. The SCRA tolls statutes of limitations in lawsuits involving service members.

      However, the Court held that the SCRA applied and tolled the statute of limitations until Shawn no longer had personal liability on the note. That occurred on July 13, 2011, the date of the discharge of his personal liability on the debt. Therefore, the statute of limitation began on all of the past installments on July 13, 2011. Further, the bankruptcy eliminated only Shawn’s personal liability on the note. The debt, the note, and the payment schedule remain unchanged. The notice of nonjudicial foreclosure was given on October 20, 2019, prior to the November payment coming due. Any outstanding installments prior to November 2013, were not enforceable in the foreclosure action due to the six-year statute of limitations. But, enforcement of the DOT was not barred as to the remainder due under the note. Thus, the trial court erred by quieting title in Copper Creek.

      Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legal, paralegal, and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, and corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

      Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality, and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

      Visit: www.draftnctaft.com | info@draftncraft.com | +1 6463676958 & 75

  • Federal District Court, California Dismisses Class Action Suit for Lack of Specific Jurisdiction

      On April 01, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled in dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed against Netgain Technology, on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction over the business. Lee v. NetGain Tech., 21cv1144-LL-MSB (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2022).

      The lead plaintiff was a resident of South Carolina, while Netgain Tech is a Minnesota-based company. Plaintiff filed the class action alleging a data breach that affected personal and medical information of patients at Caresouth Carolina, a community health center. The Netgain Tech was the cloud-hosting service for the health center along with many other organizations. As a patient of Caresouth, Plaintiff was required to provide Netgain and Caresouth with personal medical information and was given the assurance that the provided information would be kept safe from unauthorized access. However, on December 03, 2020, network servers of Netgain and Caresouth were infiltrated and access was gained to such network servers. Netgain had to pay a significant amount of money in exchange for a promise that the attackers would delete copies of the data that had been stolen. The same was conveyed to the Plaintiff through a letter on May 17, 2021.

      As the matter came before the Court, Netgain filed a motion to dismiss the putative class action for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).  The provision states that a suit may be dismissed by a district court for lack of personal jurisdiction.

      In response to the same, Plaintiff argued that it had filed the suit under specific jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction exists where “the defendant’s suit-related conduct . . . . create[s] a substantial connection with the forum State.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014). In order for a federal court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant it considers following things: (1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.

      Plaintiff contended that Netgain conducted a major portion of its business in the state of California. Further, it also has an office and employees residing in California. Moreover, it circulates its advertisements and provides services to the residents of California. Therefore, Plaintiff argued that the District Court was the proper forum for the matter in hand.

      However, Judge Linda Lopez held that the Court was not an appropriate forum for the present matter. The Court stated that the complaint filed by the Plaintiff revolved around the allegation that Netgain failed to secure information of Caresouth patients. Therefore, the complaint had nothing to do with the company’s operations in San Diego, California. The Court also rejected the motion filed for jurisdictional discovery. It was filed with the reason to establish that the San Diego location was at least partially responsible for the alleged data breach. The same was dismissed by the Court for the reason that the Plaintiff had no evidence to support his claim.

  • Southern District of Florida Grants Motion to Dismiss in Mass Class Action

      On April 5, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has granted motion to dismiss in favor of defendant Huntsman Corporation in Andres v. Raytheon Techs. Corp & Others Civil Action,No. 21-61757-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2022). The case was brought by the son of Plaintiff John R. Andres against 51 defendants. Mr. Andres died because of malignant mesothelioma. Plaintiff’s son asserted that over the course of working with defendants, Mr. Andres handled and contacted with number of products containing asbestos which were highly dangerous and contributed to Mr. Andres’s death.

      On the contrary, Defendant Huntsman Corporation filed a motion to dismiss contending that they were not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. Defendant alleged that Plaintiff’s complaint has not made specific allegations concerning Huntsman’s business or conduct, instead the Plaintiff pled jurisdictional allegations common to all Defendants. For instance, the complaint comprises defendants, who were either Florida residents or had conducted business in Florida.

      In addition to this, Joe Hamor, an assistant treasurer to Defendant Huntsman, filed a declaration in favor of defendant. He asserted that Huntsman Corporation is only a holding company incorporated in Delaware with a principal place of business in Texas. Plaintiff in its reply stated that Huntsman has proper jurisdiction in Florida. Defendants targeted sale of its product as well as possessed a physical facility in Pensacola, Florida. Huntsman also owned the trademark to two products that are sold in Florida. These products potentially contributed to Mr. Andres’ alleged asbestos exposure.

      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a plaintiff seeking personal jurisdiction over a nonresident bears the initial burden of alleging sufficient facts in the complaint to establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction.

      After hearing the arguments, the court found that plaintiffs failed to contend a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over Huntsman and allowed Huntsman’s motion to dismiss. The court also said that the plaintiffs had failed to prove jurisdiction by affidavits, testimony, or documents while submitting reply to Huntsman’s rebut.

      Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legal, paralegal, and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, and corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

      Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality, and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

      Visit: www.draftnctaft.com | info@draftncraft.com | +1 6463676958 & 75

  • First Department Ordered New Trial in Personal Injury Damages Lawsuit

      On March 29, 2022, the Appellate Division, First Department, decided in Miller v. Camelot Communications Group, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02091 (1st Dept. Mar 29, 2022) that the trial judge erroneously precluded the defendants from using the deposition transcript from the prior lawsuit and therefore ordered a new trial to be held on the issue of damages.  

      The facts state that on December 13, 2014, when Plaintiff Linda Miller, a pedestrian crossing the street on Broadway at an intersection, was struck by a van. She filed a case against the at-fault van driver and accordingly awarded for damages in the total sum of $4,030,000 for pain and suffering and for future medical expenses

      Approximately 18 months before this accident, Plaintiff sustained a head injury at Lincoln Center when an usher swung a door open and hit her in the head. Consequently, she filed a complaint against the Lincoln Center and claimed head-related injuries which included seizure and a concussion, dizziness and memory issues and pain in her neck and shoulder. The case was settled for an undisclosed sum in 2015.

      At trial in the new lawsuit, the defense attempted to introduce into evidence Ms. Miller’s deposition transcript from the Lincoln Center lawsuit (held just two months before the new accident). Plaintiff argued in favor of preclusion because the defense had failed to disclose that they intended to use the transcript. The judge in the new lawsuit precluded the defendants from using the transcript.

      Further, the defendant contended that most of the complaints (such as traumatic brain injury, right arm/shoulder, left knee – torn meniscus, right wrist – carpal tunnel syndrome; surgery, keloid scarring to face and leg, and depression – were largely due to impact on acting career) claimed by the plaintiff were related to her Lincoln Center lawsuit. On the contrary, Plaintiff asserted that after her prior accident she was physically and socially active. But the new accident greatly affected her health. She was largely sedentary, lost her career and was in constant pain, and was clinically depressed.

      Keeping all these arguments in mind, the appellate court ordered a new trial on the issue of damages and stated that the trial judge erred in giving the defendants a chance to use the deposition transcript from the earlier lawsuit.

      Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legal, paralegal, and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, and corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

      Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality, and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

      Visit: www.draftnctaft.com | info@draftncraft.com | +1 6463676958 & 75

  • Supreme Court of Georgia Rules out Product Liability due to Third Party’s Wrongful Behavior

      The Supreme Court of Georgia on March 15, 2022, decided in Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., Case that a complaint alleging a product liability claim could survive a motion to dismiss when a third-party user of the product engaged in intentionally wrongful behavior.

      In this case, Mr. Maynard filed a complaint about the injuries he suffered in a motor vehicle accident when Christal McGee rear-ended Mr. Maynard’s vehicle while driving over 100 miles per hour. In an inquiry, it was found that Ms. McGee was using a “Speed Filter” feature of the Snapchat app to estimate her speed and wanted to post it on her social media apps including Snapchat. Mr. Maynard alleged in his complaint that such applications are poorly designed and neglect user warnings.

      However, the Georgia Court of Appeals had upheld the dismissal of Maynard’s complaint, concluding that a manufacturer had no duty to design a product to accommodate a user’s intentional misbehavior. [See Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., 357 Ga. App. 496, 500, 502 (851 SE2d 128) (2020)]. In addition to this, the Supreme Court of Georgia in its certiorari review concluded that the complaint stated a product liability claim.

      The Supreme Court of Georgia stated that it is the duty of every product manufacturer to provide adequate information regarding the product and protect users against any kind of harm. The manufacturers are also obliged to invent sensible designs to avoid such harm. 

      The court’s decision says more about Georgia’s minimal notice pleading standard than about Georgia’s substantive product liability law. Mr. Maynard rightly pled that the driver’s misuse of the Speed Filter was reasonably foreseeable, that the Speed Filter was defective, and that the defect was the proximate cause of his injury. He had adequately pled a product liability claim. Therefore, his complaint survived a motion to dismiss. 

      Further, the supreme court of Georgia also mentioned that when the case reaches the summary judgment stage, and the case is better framed by the evidence of what happened, they will have a clear idea about what Georgia law needs from a manufacturer when a product user engages in intentional misbehavior.

      Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legal, paralegal, and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

      Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality, and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

      Visit: www.draftnctaft.com  |  info@draftncraft.com  |  +1 6463676958 & 75

  • Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): Employers fate to be decided in 2022

      On December 15, 2021, the United States Supreme Court announced to review the most consequential PAGA case Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573 (Dec 15, 2021). The step has been taken after almost a decade. The Supreme Court repeatedly denied requests to decide the same issue and now finally agreed to review the rule prohibiting California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) waivers in individual arbitration agreements. In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, since 2014, the PAGA-only representative actions have flooded the courts and frustrated employers.  The argument presented was that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) should have pre-empted the current situation, an argument that the California Supreme Court has rejected. 

      It sure seems likely that a newly formulated conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court prompted this move.  A decision is expected in mid-2022. In other words, the Court will decide whether employers may limit PAGA actions by way of employment arbitration agreements with representative action waivers, the same way they limit class actions through class action waivers.

      PAGA allows a Court to award a penalty for each pay period that includes a wage-and-hour violation.  It does not include the damages for the underlying violation, just the discretionary penalty, which starts at $100 per employee per pay period, and increases to $200, and even $250 (or in extreme cases of knowing violations, $1000).

      This change is also focused on various lobbying groups (including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association, the California New Car Dealers Association, and the Western Growers) who had made all the efforts to repeal PAGA so that no one can file a representative action in the shoes of the state and recover civil penalties (and hence related attorneys’ fees). This initiative entitled the Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act of 2022, would place greater enforcement responsibilities on the DLSE (Division of Labor Standards Enforcement), and require sufficient funds for that purpose. The only purpose of this initiative is the attorneys who file PAGA claims or the state cannot recover any money. This initiative has a long road ahead, but if any employer would like to be proactive about PAGA, they can certainly support the lobbying effort or join the signature-gathering effort that will be required to get on the ballot in 2022.

      So, we can expect there may be some PAGA relief in 2022 and employers can only wish that this does not happen.

      Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legalparalegal and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

      Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

      Visit: www.draftnctaft.com  |  info@draftncraft.com  |  +1 6463676958 & 75

  • New Jersey Lawmakers Advance Bill To Allow Pandemic Insurance

      A New Jersey Assembly committee on Wednesday advanced legislation that would permit insurers to offer coverage to policyholders for losses stemming from a pandemic like the coronavirus outbreak under provisions that state regulators would have to review on an expedited basis.

      NJ Lawmakers Advance Bill To Allow Pandemic Insurance

      With businesses across the Garden State struggling to secure such coverage amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee approved A.B. 4551, which would enable insurance companies to offer a policy “rider” that would extend coverage for “global virus transmission or pandemic, or both.”

      The legislation, which was introduced in August, tackles a coverage issue that has sparked litigation in New Jersey state and federal courts after insurers refused to cover pandemic-related losses for businesses that took financial hits in the wake of government restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19.

      The legislation, which was introduced in August, tackles a coverage issue that has sparked litigation in New Jersey state and federal courts after insurers refused to cover pandemic-related losses for businesses that took financial hits in the wake of government restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19.

      The legislation would take effect immediately and apply to insurance policies issued on or after the date when the DOBI commissioner approves such a rider.

      Source: https://www.law360.com/newjersey/articles/1390340/nj-lawmakers-advance-bill-to-allow-pandemic-insurance

  • Tech groups criticize Florida’s social media law as Unconstitutional.

      Tech groups criticize Florida’s social media law as unconstitutional, setting the stage for legal action.

      Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill Monday aiming to punish social media companies for their moderation decisions. The law would fine Internet companies if they suspend political candidates in the run-up to elections. It also would also make it easier for the Florida state attorney general and individuals to bring lawsuits when they think tech companies have acted unfairly.

      Legal experts say they expect to see lawsuits challenging the measure. Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School in California, described the bill as bad policy and warned that some of its provisions are “obviously unconstitutional” because they restrict the editorial discretion of online publishers. He said some aspects of the law also would be preempted by a federal Internet law known as Section 230 that shields Internet companies from lawsuits over posts, photos and other content shared on their services.

      The Texas Senate has approved legislation like Florida’s that would prevent large tech companies from blocking or discriminating against users based on their viewpoints or location within Texas. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has expressed support for that bill. North Carolina and Louisiana state lawmakers have introduced similar measures.

      Florida lawmakers created a special exemption for companies that own theme parks, which could apply to websites operated by Disney. Disney World is a major Florida tourist attraction, while Comcast owns Universal Studios Florida.

      Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/25/technology-202-tech-groups-criticize-florida-social-media-law-unconstitutional-setting-stage-legal-action/

  • New York ‘HERO’ Act requires employers to establish airborne infectious disease safety protocols.

      New York ‘HERO’ Act

      The New York HERO Act (S.1034-B/A.2681-B), a critical bill requiring businesses to have enforceable safety standards to prevent further spread of coronavirus and other airborne diseases, was signed into law by Governor Cuomo. Under the new law, employers are required to implement several workplace safety measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

      The NY HERO Act, or the New York Health and Essential Rights Act, requires the Departments of Labor and Health to implement enforceable minimum standards for workplace safety. The regulations must include protocols on testing, PPE, social distancing, hand hygiene, disinfection, and engineering controls. Workers would also be given a direct role in monitoring and reporting violations through workplace health and safety committees and employees would be protected from retaliation for utilizing their rights under the law.

      After the NY DOL issues its model standards, each New York employer must choose to either adopt the model standard that applies to its industry or establish its own airborne infectious disease exposure prevention plan that equals or exceeds the model standard. Employers must also provide their airborne infectious disease prevention plan in writing to their employees, including their plan in their employee handbooks, and post their plan in a prominent location in the workplace.

      New York employers should watch for the NY DOL to issue model airborne infectious disease prevention standards by June 4, 2021, and should prepare to issue and post airborne infectious disease prevention plans and update their handbooks accordingly. In the meantime, New York employers should continue to comply with all state and local safety protocols as employees return to work.

      Source: https://www.lexblog.com/2021/05/25/new-york-hero-act-requires-employers-to-establish-airborne-infectious-disease-safety-protocols/

  • Cost-padding, profit shedding law firms! Are you one of them?

      Cost padding happens when a business deliberately inflates its costs than what it has incurred and then passes it over to its consumers. However, there are costs that get passed over by the businesses unintentionally due to the high operating expenses, can this be considered as cost padding as well?

      Legal Services - Draft n CraftEven if it is, yes, should your law firm really be worried if the additional expenses are anyways getting rolled over to your clients ultimately?

      In today’s time, operating costs has become inversely proportional to the profit. Higher the cost, the lesser the profit, and vice-versa.

      With the advent of technology and the increase in competition, it has almost become impossible to pass over these costs to the clients, as there is always a fear of losing them out to the competition. Therefore, cost-padding is eventually leading to profit-shedding because if you are not optimizing your expenses, your practice will be bearing the inflated expenses out of its profit margins, making it extremely difficult for it to survive in the longer run.

      Whilst managing the cost of operating business is easier said than done, it’s literally a serious challenge for law firms because it was not very long ago that they were just not being questioned on their costs by their clients at all.

      Outsourcing of monotonous and tedious tasks is one way of reducing your operating expenses. It will not only give you the cost benefits, but it will also lead to an increase in efficiency, help you operate in a 24*7 environment, and will help you manage the uneven work-flow effectively. Last but not the least, it will also allow you to accept more cases that you might have turned-down otherwise due to a lack of resources. All of this, however, will happen only if you collaborate with a reliable and experienced vendor.

       

      Draft n Craft has been serving US law firms for over 12 years and has collaborated with over 200 US law firms over the years. The company has been supporting both plaintiffs as well as defense law firms and is not only helping them manage their costs but has also been instrumental in developing credible processes which in turn is reducing their case cycles as well.

      So if you are one of those law firms who is looking to be a cost-shedding, profit-making practice, don’t just wait, please feel free to connect at info@draftncraft.com for a free consultation.

  • Why Texas Attorneys & Law Firms Should Hire Virtual Paralegals from Draft n Craft?

      Draft n Craft Legal Outsourcing, is the best legal, and paralegal services provider company for Texas attorneys, law firms and in-house legal departments when it comes to taking care of your legal, and paralegal service needs, whether that’s drafting documents like interrogatories, discovery requests & responses, settlement demand and demand packages, complaints and answers, motions and template based legal documents and preparing legal documents etc., or sharing workload of your team by providing a Dedicated Remote Employees (DRE), where a virtual attorney/paralegal works as your remote employee during your work hours. 

      Here are the four reasons why Team – Draft n Craft are the best legal outsourcing partner for Texas Attorneys, Law Firms, and In-house Legal Departments — plus tips on how you can work with them to meet your legal needs now and in the future.

      Paralegal in Texas

       1) Providing you with Outstanding Experience

      Draft n Craft’s Paralegal Services Team, have more than 14+ years of experience in the legal outsourcing field. We understand the importance of providing our clients with high-quality services and strive to exceed their expectations. We have a team of knowledgeable and dedicated Indian Attorneys, Doctors, Summarizers, IT Professionals who are committed to provide the best possible services.

      We’re here to help you: We know that running and managing a Law Firm and In-House Legal Departments can be a daunting task. We’ll help you find the right services and resources, and get your firm off the ground.

      You’re in good hands: When you choose Draft n Craft’s Paralegal Services, you and your team gets an 100% assurance that you’re in good hands.

      2) Wide Range of Legal & Paralegal Support Service for Our Client

      When it comes to choosing a legal outsourcing firm or a legal and paralegal services provider or an alternate legal services provider, you want to make sure that you’re getting the best possible service. That’s why Draft n Craft Paralegal Services is the best choice for Texas’s Law Firms and In-House Legal Departments.

      We offer a wide range of services for our clients, so that you can be sure that we have the experience and expertise to handle your projects. If you’re looking for the best possible Legal Outsourcing Partner, look no further than Draft n Craft.

      3) Create A 24X5 Working Environment & Maximize Efficiency

      Create a 24*5 working environment and maximize efficiency by using our team of highly qualified and knowledgeable attorneys and summarizers who are experts in drafting, researching, evaluating, and summarizing critical information. We’re passionate about what we do, and it shows in our work.

       4) Highly Skilled and Trained Paralegals & Summarizers

      It is noted that firms who are using our services are saving up to 57 % of the cost and now their legal secretaries, and paralegals are contributing more to client support/billable activities. This is also helping to improve the overall attorney-secretary/paralegal ratio of the firm thus enabling the existing staff to focus on more productive tasks.

      We are not only offering some of the best prices in the legal industry but also express Turnaround Time as well. For services like Deposition Summary, it is just 2-3 working days, for Medical Record Summary it is 7 – 10 working days and for Legal Research/Drafting, and Paralegal/Administrative Support we work as per the needs and requirements of the received project. If need be, we can offer an even better TAT.

      Here are ways Team Draft n Craft are helping attorneys and law firms across the US with their Legal, Medico-Legal and Paralegal/Administrative Virtual Support Services:

      Legal/Video Transcription
      Deposition transcription services | Court proceedings | Trial proceedings | Interviews | Dictation by attorneys
      Deposition Summary
      Deposition Digest | Deposition Summary

      Medical Records Summary
      | Attending Physician Statement (APS) Summary
      Medical Expanse Sheet | Medical Records Summary | Medical Narrative Summary | Medical Billing | Attending Physician Statement (APS) Summary

      Legal Research & Writing

      Multi-Jurisdiction Legal Research | Settlement Demands | Briefs & Motions | Summons & Complaints | Spreadsheet Preparation | Discovery Requests and Responses
      Paralegal/Assistance Support
      Indexing documents | Creating and maintaining databases | Redactions, Copy typing and editing legal and other documents | Bate-stamping | Creating a chronology of events | Carrying out online searches | Reviewing data and performing analysis | Creating customized reports | Drafting standard template-based documents | Document formatting based on particular court requirements | Preparing, reviewing, analyzing & organizing documents in connection with litigation matters | Any other customized paralegal or administrative support as per the needs and requirements of our clients

      Conclusion

      If you have been looking for the best Legal, Medico-Legal and Paralegal Partner in Texas, look no further. Draft n Craft, has over 14+ years of experience in the legal outsourcing industry and will be able to answer all your questions as well as take care of your needs today Virtually!

      Interested in our Medico-Legal & Paralegal Support Services?

      Visit us: www.draftncraft.com | Email us at info@draftncraft.com | Call us at +1 646 367 6958/6975

  • Why Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO) Is Your Best Option?

      The legal industry all throughout the world battled to keep up with the demands of the new normal during the COVID-19 epidemic. The strain on legal departments has come from challenges with budgeting, resource management, and process efficiency. Spending on legal services has increased because of organizational restructuring and evolving regulations. Concerns about cybersecurity, issues with remote work, process workflow optimization, and the adoption of new technologies are among the other hurdles.

      The global legal process outsourcing (LPO) market is predicted to reach US$30 billion by 2027. LPOs provide solutions to problems involving people, processes, and technology. Winning a partnership with an LPO can increase in-house skills and flexibility while lowering expenses.

      The need for an Legal Process Outsourcing or now Alternate Legal Service Provider (ALSP)

      Complex service delivery requirements across business units have been triggered by today’s corporate dynamics. The difficulties faced by corporate legal departments have increased as a result, and they now need to evaluate and put into practice legal outsourcing solutions. Some justifications for law firms to think about outsourcing out their legal procedures include the following:

      Costs: Corporate legal spending is skyrocketing because of more regulations and rising litigation costs. As a result, businesses are looking for ways to reduce their legal expenses, and legal departments are under pressure to become more effective and efficient.

      Process & People: Legal departments have had difficulty developing a thorough corporate project management competence and the resources required to run their projects successfully. The methods of service delivery that corporate legal teams found to be effective in the past are no longer sufficient to meet the goals and standards for the future.

      Technology: As the need for technology and tools to simplify legal work grows, businesses are faced with the dilemma of either creating these tools in-house or hiring an outside source to deliver an all-encompassing or best-in-class technology solution. Legal departments still lack automation and integrated technological solutions in areas like legal case administration, document review, billing, legal word processing, and contract management, further depleting costs and resources.

      Law firms and In-House Legal Departments are turning more and more to legal process outsourcing to address these problems. By assisting corporate legal departments in resolving many of these problems through benefits in the areas of people, process, and technology, this choice demonstrates its value to them.

      Industry Trends for Legal Process Outsourcing

      41 percent of organizations would explore outsourcing a variety of legal function processes, while 33 percent actually do so. This suggests that a sizable fraction of internal legal departments are striving to modernize their processes. 26 percent employ internal teams to manage their tasks.

      ALSPs are now used by 71 percent of businesses and 79 percent of law firms to save costs, boost productivity, and take use of cutting-edge technology.

      Instead of seeing ALSPs as competitors, both legal firms and corporations have “awakened” to the advantages of working with them. They both are becoming more aware of how ALSPs may boost operational effectiveness and cut costs while yet allowing businesses to hold onto and even increase higher-value jobs.

      ALSPs are more frequently used for litigation-related services by Australian and American businesses.

      Benefits of LPO or now ALSP

      • Lowering costs effectively
      • Access to a wealth of legal knowledge
      • Faster turnaround time
      • increasing the depth of practice
      • Staffing that is adaptable for each client case
      • Access to cutting-edge technology and unique skills
      • Accept business innovation and change
      • Achieving work-life harmony

      What legal services that are outsourced are most advantageous to law firms, and how do you choose a provider?

      Preferably, your legal outsourcing service provider will offer unique solutions that deal with legal problems all the way around. So how exactly does a business pick an outsourcing partner? by evaluating the need for legal outsourcing and researching options for legal work outsourcing that meet your needs.

      So how does a company pick an outsourcing partner? Before deciding, take into account the following aspects:

      • How much knowledge does the vendor have about your field?
      • What technological skill/knowledge does LPO possess?
      • Is the service provider home to a team of in-house subject matter experts?
      • Can the process be outsourced to produce real, long-term efficiencies?
      • What methods do they use to ensure data security and confidentiality?

      Comprehensive Legal Support Solutions by Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft Legal Outsourcing is a leading alternate legal service provider supporting attorneys, law firms, and in-house legal departments, insurance companies, and the healthcare industry. Our legal and paralegal support services include – Legal Drafting, Legal Research, Deposition Summary, Medical Records Summary, Contract Lifecycle Management, Multiple Data-Intensive Paralegal Services, Attending Physician Statement (APS) summaries, and more.

      Team Draft n Craft has worked with 450+ attorneys, law firms, and corporations from 45+ US States and helped them not only with their Pre-Litigation and Litigation work but also have helped them to maximize their team efficiencies and provided a 24 x 5 working environment with quality support services with utmost security and confidentiality.

      If you wish to discuss how Team Draft n Craft can add value to your business, please send us an email at info@draftncraft.com to schedule a web meeting or telephone conference.

      For updates and insights, follow us via @draftncraft on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and @draftncraftlpo on Instagram