|
|
|
New York Dental Malpractice Claims
Law Firm News |
2021/07/19 17:19
|
The law firm of Jordan R. Pine & Associates is exclusively dedicated to representing clients in dental malpractice lawsuits in New York State.
New York Dental Malpractice Attorney - We have been involved with over 1,000 dental malpractice cases and have the expertise, resources, and passion to handle claims in this highly specific area. We have recovered millions of dollars for our clients.
Dental Malpractice occurs when the treatment provided by dental health care professionals falls below the acceptable standard of care causing serious personal injuries. Like other areas of professional malpractice, dental malpractice is a form of negligence. Dentists are usually working hard to make sure that their patients are well cared for, but there are far too many mistakes that could have been prevented.
Mr. Pine is dedicated to securing the compensation people deserve for injuries caused by dental malpractice and dental error. As an experienced New York dental malpractice lawyer, a complete copy of your dental records will be obtained. The records are yours and you are entitled to this information under the law. It must be kept in mind that certain records may not be kept in the dental chart and must be specifically requested separately. For instance, the ledger and account history are usually on the computer. It is also very important that all x-rays also be duplicated and obtained as well as progress notes, copies of prescriptions, copies of referral slips, etc.
New York Dental Malpractice Claims
If you or a loved one has been a victim of dental malpractice, you have the right to seek fair and full compensation for your present and future medical expenses, diminished quality of life, lost wages, pain and suffering and more.
Before determining whether your dental malpractice claim is valid, you should consult with us. We will sit down to discuss your injuries and the merits of your case. Contact our New York dental malpractice law firm today at (845) 558-8286 or through our contact form. We are here to help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruling is final blow to New Hampshire voter registration law
Law Firm News |
2021/07/02 19:04
|
The New Hampshire Supreme Court struck a final blow Friday to a 2017 voter registration law that faced repeated legislative and court challenges, upholding a previous ruling that it’s unconstitutional.
The law required additional documentation from voters who register within 30 days of an election. It was passed by the Republican Legislature after President Donald Trump alleged that widespread voter fraud led to his loss in the state in 2016, though there is no evidence to support that and voter fraud cases are rare. Supporters said the law would increase trust in elections by requiring people to prove they live where they vote, but opponents argued it was confusing, unnecessary and intimidating.
After the New Hampshire Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters sued, a judge allowed the law to take effect in 2018 but blocked penalties of a $5,000 fine and a year in jail for fraud. In 2019, after Democrats won control of the Legislature, lawmakers passed a bill to repeal the law, but it was vetoed by Republican Gov. Chris Sununu.
The case went to trial in late 2019, and a judge ruled in April 2020 that the law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld that decision Friday.
“We acknowledge that the interests identified by the state are important, if not vital,” Justice Patrick Donovan wrote in the unanimous order. But the law failed to further those objectives while imposing unreasonable burdens on the right to vote, the court concluded.
Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley said the ruling “sends a clear message to Chris Sununu and NH Republicans that their insidious voter suppression schemes will not stand in New Hampshire.”
“Today, we celebrate this incredible victory for voting rights. Tomorrow, we will continue to work to protect voting rights in the Granite State,” he said in a statement.
Sununu encouraged the Legislature to propose new legislation taking the court order into account.
“It’s disappointing that these commonsense reforms were not supported by our Supreme Court, but we have to respect their decision,” he said.
In its ruling, the court rejected the state’s argument that the law could only be struck down if it was unconstitutional in every set of circumstances. Similarly, it disagreed with the state’s claim that the law shouldn’t be deemed unconstitutional because only some, but not all, voters are burdened by it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court sides with ex-athletes in NCAA compensation case
Law Firm News |
2021/06/21 17:42
|
The Supreme Court decided unanimously Monday that the NCAA can’t enforce rules limiting education-related benefits — like computers and paid internships — that colleges offer to student athletes.
The case doesn’t decide whether students can be paid salaries. Instead, the ruling will help determine whether schools decide to offer athletes tens of thousands of dollars in those benefits for things including tutoring, study abroad programs and graduate scholarships.
The high court agreed with a group of former college athletes that NCAA limits on the education-related benefits that colleges can offer athletes who play Division I basketball and football are unenforceable.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court that the NCAA sought “immunity from the normal operation of the antitrust laws,” which the court declined to grant.
Under current NCAA rules, students cannot be paid, and the scholarship money colleges can offer is capped at the cost of attending the school. The NCAA had defended its rules as necessary to preserve the amateur nature of college sports.
But the former athletes who brought the case, including former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston, argued that the NCAA’s rules on education-related compensation were unfair and violate federal antitrust law designed to promote competition. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling barring the NCAA from enforcing those rules.
As a result of the ruling, the NCAA itself can’t bar schools from sweetening their offers to Division I basketball and football players with additional education-related benefits. But individual athletic conferences can still set limits if they choose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
British lawyer Karim Khan sworn in as ICC’s chief prosecutor
Law Firm News |
2021/06/16 17:47
|
British lawyer Karim Khan was sworn in Wednesday as the new chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, pledging to reach out to nations that are not members of the court in his quest to end impunity for atrocities and to try to hold trials in countries where crimes are committed.
Khan, a 51-year-old English lawyer, has years of experience in international courts as a prosecutor, investigator and defense attorney. He takes over from Fatou Bensouda of Gambia, whose nine-year term ended Tuesday.
“The priority for me, and I believe that’s the principle of the Rome Statute, is not to focus so much on where trials take place, but to ensure that the quest for accountability and inroads on impunity are made,” Khan said, referring to the treaty that founded the court, in his first speech after taking his oath of office.
“The Hague itself should be a city of last resort,” he said. “Wherever possible, we should be trying to have trials in the country or in the region.”
Khan said he wanted to work with countries that are not among the court’s 123 member states to achieve justice. World powers the United States, Russia and China are not members and do not recognize the court’s jurisdiction.
“My conviction is that we can find common ground in the quest and in the imperative to ensure we eradicate genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes,” Khan said.
Most recently, Khan led a United Nations team investigating atrocities in Iraq, telling the Security Council last month that he uncovered “clear and compelling evidence” that Islamic State extremists committed genocide against the Yazidi minority in 2014.
In the past, he has defended clients at international courts including former Liberian President Charles Taylor and Kenya’s Deputy President William Ruto. ICC prosecutors dropped charges against Ruto and President Uhuru Kenyatta of involvement in deadly post-election violence in their country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
