The high incidence of alcohol-related vehicle accidents has resulted in an equally large number of civil actions being filed in our state and throughout the country. The courts have responded in a proper fashion by holding bars, restaurants, package stores, and the like responsible to injured parties. Due to the catastrophic injuries and deaths resulting from drunk-driving crashes, the national movement to curb drunk driving, the loose practices by many sellers of alcoholic beverages, and the increased awareness by jurors generally, the value of these cases has increased greatly.

A statute of limitations defines the period of time in which one is permitted to bring a lawsuit. In order for a statute of limitations to be constitutional, it must provide plaintiffs reasonable time in which to bring their claim. However, according to a recent Alabama Supreme Court decision, toxic tort victims who do not become ill until several years after they were exposed to a hazardous substance are left with no time in which to bring their claim. As a result, those plaintiffs that suffer from a latent disease are left with no opportunity to seek redress for their personal injuries. The following is an outline of the statute of limitations issue, a summary of the Alabama Supreme Court decision which confirmed the unjust policy, a history of how Alabama law evolved to create the injustice, and finally, the major arguments against the policy. Insert Description of the Document Here

In 1996 Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) out of concern that millions of American workers were without health insurance coverage when they changed employers because insurance plans for new employers typically excluded coverage for preexisting conditions. HIPAA seeks to protect workers by allowing health insurance plans to be portable so that workers who changed jobs could keep their existing health insurance. In addition to providing insurance protection for workers, HIPAA regulates the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health care information and it also preempts state law to the extent that a state’s law is contrary to the provisions of HIPAA. This article gives an overview of HIPAA and then focuses primarily on the basic discovery related requirements and issues concerning the HIPAA privacy rules.

Meaningful discovery in the consumer fraud case begins with the initial discovery filed with the complaint, along with deposition notices of those persons that the plaintiff’s attorney wishes to depose once he has received all of his responses to request for production and responses to interrogatories. Every consumer fraud case should have a discovery plan, and that plan must begin with the initial filing of discovery with the complaint. This initial discovery will set the tone of the case, and in particular, it will set the tone of discovery being conducted in the case.

Mastering the rules of evidence, whether in state or federal court, is an essential tool in being an effective advocate for your client. With a standing knowledge of the relevant rules of evidence, you can make effective objections which will dictate the substance, course and outcome of the trial. A form of the Federal Rules of Evidence was adopted by the :$tate·'c):fAla.oama,pJ.1,;~July19;l99;. Alabama's newly adopted Rules of Evidence became effective on 'j,anuafYl,'·l-9.96.'.iIowever, one should not overemphasize the impact of the federal model on the Alabama Rules of Evidence. It is important to note that they are not clones of each other. There are TIU111erOUS instances when it was decided to reject a particular federal principle and abide by the pre-existing Alabama evidence rule. Therefore, in a very real sense, the Alabama Rules of Evidence are not the Federal Rules of Evidence. The following are the major instances in the areas of evidence and objections when rejection or modification of the corresponding federal rule occurred: