• 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.

  • Top Five Reasons To Hire A Remote (Virtual) Paralegal from Draft n Craft

      Top Five Reasons To Hire A Remote Paralegal

      The legal industry is changing. Technology has made it possible for lawyers to do more with less, and that has led to a demand for legal talent that is both skilled and affordable. Virtual paralegals/attorneys offer a solution to this problem.

      Remote paralegals (virtual paralegals) are legal professionals who work remotely, providing support to attorneys and law firms. They are often based in countries where the cost of living is lower, which allows them to charge rates that are a fraction of what an attorney would pay for the same services in the United States.

      In addition to being more affordable, remote paralegals (virtual paralegals) are also highly skilled and experienced. Many of them have worked as paralegals/assistants/office managers in the United States and have a deep understanding of the US Jurisdictions.

      If you are looking for legal talent that is both skilled and affordable, then a remote paralegal (virtual paralegal) from Draft n Craft is the perfect solution. Here are the top five reasons to hire a remote paralegal:

      1. You can focus on your billable work: 

      Having a remote employee (virtual employee) on board can free up your time to focus on billable tasks. A remote employee can help you with more mundane tasks such as document review, client intake, and research, allowing you to focus on the more difficult and time-consuming legal work. This can increase your overall productivity and help you to achieve greater success.

      2. You can avoid the cost of a full-time employee: 

      The cost of hiring a full-time employee in the United States can be prohibitively expensive. With a virtual employee, you can access the same quality of work without the same level of cost. The hiring costs are much lower rates than their American counterparts and can help to significantly reduce your overhead expenses. What’s more, you don’t need to worry about the additional costs associated with having a full-time employee on the books. You won’t need to pay for additional office space or equipment, or to provide employee benefits and healthcare. This can further reduce your costs and help to make your practice more profitable.

      3. You get expert help with your legal work: 

      Virtual employees are highly skilled and experienced. Many of them have worked as paralegals/assistants in the United States and have a deep understanding of the US Jurisdiction. This means that you can confidently outsource high-quality legal work to them. Moreover, your virtual employee can help you with more specialized tasks that may be outside the scope of your own experience. They can provide you with valuable insight into legal issues and can help you to gain a better understanding of the law. They can also help you to stay abreast of developments in the legal industry and keep you informed of changes to legislation.

      4. You can avoid the hassle of managing an in-house staff: 

      Hiring and managing a full-time in-house staff can be a difficult and time-consuming process. With a virtual employee, you will no longer need to worry about this. You can benefit from the same level of expertise without the hassle of managing an in-house team. What’s more, a virtual paralegal can provide you with the flexibility to scale up your services on a temporary or part-time basis. This can allow you to meet spikes in demand and cope with the flow of your workload. You can easily expand your team to accommodate these changes, without needing to commit long-term.

      5. You can get help with a specialized legal project: 

      A remote paralegal (virtual paralegal) can help you with more specialized legal projects. They can provide valuable assistance with complex legal research projects, drafting pleadings, motions, briefs. discovery requests and responses, summarization of depositions and medical records, etc. They can also help you to prepare for trials, hearings, and other legal proceedings. Moreover, a virtual employee can help you to develop legal strategies and to identify potential pitfalls or legal issues. They can provide valuable insight and advice into any legal project or task that you may be undertaking and can help you to avoid potential legal problems in the future.

      Companies of all sizes are now turning to Dedicated Remote Employees (DREs) from Draft n Craft (A legal support services company) to maximize their business productivity and profitability.

      Our state-of-the-art DRE models offer a virtual paralegal/attorney that does the heavy lifting in day-to-day operations, freeing you up to focus on what matters most – your customers, clients, and growing your business. With our DRE model, you have the freedom to choose from a variety of models to suit your needs, giving you real-time assistance with document and data-intensive tasks, allowing for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. No more time wasted on manual tedious tasks!

      Ready to level up your business? Email or Call us at info@draftncraft.com | +1 646 367 6958 & 6975 today or Visit us at https://lnkd.in/d8xcDkb to learn more about how we can help!

  • Tips for Attorneys on Hiring of Remote Paralegals/Attorneys

      tips on hiring remote paralegal

      The legal services industry is shifting, and remote paralegals (virtual paralegal) are becoming an increasingly important part of the equation. With the rise of paralegal services, law firms are realizing that remote employees can be just as efficient and reliable as their in-office counterparts. Virtual paralegals offer several advantages, such as the ability to work from anywhere and greater flexibility in scheduling. Furthermore, virtual paralegals often have a broader range of skill sets and can help to reduce operating costs. Law firms are taking advantage of this trend by offering remote positions to paralegals, legal assistants, and other legal professionals.

      The result is an industry that is more efficient and cost-effective, and which allows law firms to tap into a larger pool of talent. As the legal services industry continues to evolve, Virtual paralegals are likely to become an even more essential part of the equation.

      Hiring Virtual paralegal (remote paralegal) or attorneys is becoming increasingly popular among law firms. Outsourcing certain tasks to remote professionals can help reduce overhead costs while still providing high-quality legal services for clients. However, it’s important to understand the key tips for hiring virtual paralegal or attorney for the job.

      • Find the right fit: Make sure that each person’s skillsets and experience align with the needs of your firm.
      • Establish clear expectations: Spell out exactly what is expected of each team member in terms of communication, deadlines, tasks, and deliverables.
      • Set up team communication protocols: Put in place protocols for how often remote workers should communicate with each other (e.g., daily check-in via email or video conference) and how they will handle issues that arise (e.g., escalation process).
      • Track progress: Establish a system for tracking each team member’s progress to ensure deadlines are met and work is done properly.

      Need a trusted paralegal to help with your legal matters? Look no further!

      Draft n Craft is proud to offer a variety of different remote paralegals and administrative support services that are available for US and Canadian clients. Our remote paralegals possess years of experience in a wide range of practice areas including (but not limited to) personal injury, medical malpractice, worker compensation, product liability, employment law, immigration law, commercial litigation and more. They are available on a case-by-case basis for one-time projects and as long-term outsourced solutions to meet your needs.

      Draft n Craft’s remote paralegal or administrative support services will help you get the job done quickly and efficiently. Take the stress out of legal work and focus on what matters.

      Practice areas we serve:

      Personal Injury Litigation || Wrongful Death Litigation || Construction Litigation || Product Liability Litigation || Class Action Litigation || Complex Commercial Litigation || Medical Malpractice Litigation || Workmen Compensation Litigation || Employment Litigation || Mass Tort Litigation || Business Litigation || Antitrust Litigation || Insurance Litigation || Securities Litigation || Family Law || Criminal Defense || Real Estate || Customized Support


      To know more about our paralegal, medico-legal support services email us at info@draftncraft.com or visit/call us at www.draftncraft.com | +1 646 367 6958 & 6975