Monday, November 25, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: Ho. Co.,MARYLAND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE FOR DUMMIES,w...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: Ho. Co.,MARYLAND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE FOR DUMMIES,w...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . " Here to make a difference. We fight, you win. " In Maryland medical malpractice, also known as med...
Ho. Co.,MARYLAND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE FOR DUMMIES,www.charlesjeromeware.com
www.charlesjeromeware.com. " Here to make a difference. We fight, you win. "
In Maryland medical malpractice, also known as medical negligence, occurs as an act or omission of an act by a healthcare provider who is professionally negligent, and the care that was provided is not
of accepted standards in the medical community, and causes injury or death to a patient.
Medical malpractice is a form of tort law, and has been established to provide economic remedies to patients who have suffered at the hands of a healthcare provider, such as a doctor, nurse, dentist, pharmacist, aide, or even a hospital or other healthcare institution.
The "statute of limitations period" ( the time limit on how long you have to file a medical
malpractice civil lawsuit in Maryland) is 3 or 5 years, depending on when the injury is "discovered"). Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code, Sec. 5-109. In other words , medical malpractice cases in Maryland must be brought within 5 years from the date of the act or omission giving rise to the injury, or within 3 years of its discovery, whichever period is shorter.
Medical malpractice law is a highly technical field of law, and these lawsuits tend to be strongly
defended by well-financed defense lawyers. These case can be exceptionally expensive to pursue.
Each year in the United States, about 200,000 people die as a result of medical malpractice. Several
hundred thousands of others are seriously injured because of errors made by surgeons, other doctors, nurses, chiropractors, podiatrists, and other healthcare providers in nursing homes, hospitals, assisted
living facilities, and other medical and residential care facilities.
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors, has successfully
represented individuals against doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical and healthcare
providers since 1988. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com,
(410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
In Maryland medical malpractice, also known as medical negligence, occurs as an act or omission of an act by a healthcare provider who is professionally negligent, and the care that was provided is not
of accepted standards in the medical community, and causes injury or death to a patient.
Medical malpractice is a form of tort law, and has been established to provide economic remedies to patients who have suffered at the hands of a healthcare provider, such as a doctor, nurse, dentist, pharmacist, aide, or even a hospital or other healthcare institution.
The "statute of limitations period" ( the time limit on how long you have to file a medical
malpractice civil lawsuit in Maryland) is 3 or 5 years, depending on when the injury is "discovered"). Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code, Sec. 5-109. In other words , medical malpractice cases in Maryland must be brought within 5 years from the date of the act or omission giving rise to the injury, or within 3 years of its discovery, whichever period is shorter.
Medical malpractice law is a highly technical field of law, and these lawsuits tend to be strongly
defended by well-financed defense lawyers. These case can be exceptionally expensive to pursue.
Each year in the United States, about 200,000 people die as a result of medical malpractice. Several
hundred thousands of others are seriously injured because of errors made by surgeons, other doctors, nurses, chiropractors, podiatrists, and other healthcare providers in nursing homes, hospitals, assisted
living facilities, and other medical and residential care facilities.
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors, has successfully
represented individuals against doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical and healthcare
providers since 1988. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com,
(410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: ATTY. CHARLES WARE'S "MULTI-BRAND FRANCHISING" TIP...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: ATTY. CHARLES WARE'S "MULTI-BRAND FRANCHISING" TIP...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . " Here to make a difference." Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is former special legal and microeconomi...
ATTY. CHARLES WARE'S "MULTI-BRAND FRANCHISING" TIPS, www.charlesjeromeware.com
www.charlesjeromeware.com. " Here to make a difference."
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is former special legal and microeconomic counsel to the chairman of the United States Federal Trade Commission. He is currently the best-selling author of five nonfiction books as well as founder and managing partner of the highly-regarded national law firm: Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors, headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. This blog is for information purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship with the reader or anyone else.
Multiple-brand franchising is not a new business concept, but its time has certainly come.
Diversification is the key word now in the thinking and strategy behind the rapid growth in multiple-brand franchising. No matter how good the Return On Investment ( ROI) may be
from a single brand, savvy franchise investors know it's not wise to put all their eggs in one basket. As multi-unit franchisees seek new avenues for growth, increasing numbers of them are adding 2nd, 3rd, and 4th concepts, and more to their franchise brand portfolios.
Their are many reasons, taken alone or together, that inspire multi-unit franchisees to become multi-brand operators:
1. Territory build-out. That is, to continue growth in their current geographic region.
2. To balance economic cycles.
3. To balance geographic or seasonal cycles.
4. To balance cash flow.
5. To balance " day section' business : for example, breakfast - lunch - dinner, etc.
6. To hedge against surprises.
7. For co-branding ; for efficiencies of scale and profit-boosting.
8. For infrastructure efficiencies.
9. For hiring and retention efficiencies.
10. For compatible corporate cultures.
11. For increased entrepreneurial spirit.
12. For synergistic reasons.
The reader must remember that new brands generally cannot be in competition with the franchisee's
existing brand. The franchisee should always check with his or her current franchisor(s), the franchise agreement(s), and a franchise attorney before pursuing new brands.
[See,www.franchising.com/howtofranchiseguide/multipleconcept_franchising_the_growing_allure_of_
_operating_several_brands.html; Chapter 14: " Franchising-Opportunities And Scams", Legal Consumer Tips And Secrets : Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States, by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse Press (2011), http://amzn.com/1462051847 ]
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is former special legal and microeconomic counsel to the chairman of the United States Federal Trade Commission. He is currently the best-selling author of five nonfiction books as well as founder and managing partner of the highly-regarded national law firm: Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors, headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. This blog is for information purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship with the reader or anyone else.
Multiple-brand franchising is not a new business concept, but its time has certainly come.
Diversification is the key word now in the thinking and strategy behind the rapid growth in multiple-brand franchising. No matter how good the Return On Investment ( ROI) may be
from a single brand, savvy franchise investors know it's not wise to put all their eggs in one basket. As multi-unit franchisees seek new avenues for growth, increasing numbers of them are adding 2nd, 3rd, and 4th concepts, and more to their franchise brand portfolios.
Their are many reasons, taken alone or together, that inspire multi-unit franchisees to become multi-brand operators:
1. Territory build-out. That is, to continue growth in their current geographic region.
2. To balance economic cycles.
3. To balance geographic or seasonal cycles.
4. To balance cash flow.
5. To balance " day section' business : for example, breakfast - lunch - dinner, etc.
6. To hedge against surprises.
7. For co-branding ; for efficiencies of scale and profit-boosting.
8. For infrastructure efficiencies.
9. For hiring and retention efficiencies.
10. For compatible corporate cultures.
11. For increased entrepreneurial spirit.
12. For synergistic reasons.
The reader must remember that new brands generally cannot be in competition with the franchisee's
existing brand. The franchisee should always check with his or her current franchisor(s), the franchise agreement(s), and a franchise attorney before pursuing new brands.
[See,www.franchising.com/howtofranchiseguide/multipleconcept_franchising_the_growing_allure_of_
_operating_several_brands.html; Chapter 14: " Franchising-Opportunities And Scams", Legal Consumer Tips And Secrets : Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States, by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse Press (2011), http://amzn.com/1462051847 ]
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: UNION "NEUTRALITY AGREEMENTS" vs. BRIBERY : Unite ...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: UNION "NEUTRALITY AGREEMENTS" vs. BRIBERY : Unite ...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . " Here to make a difference." On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United Stat...
UNION "NEUTRALITY AGREEMENTS" vs. BRIBERY : Unite Here Local 355 vs. Mulhall, [SCOTUS]
www.charlesjeromeware.com. " Here to make a difference."
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) con-
sidered whether so-called "neutrality agreements" between labor unions and employers violate
federal labor laws.
The key issue in the case [ Unite Here Local 355 vs. Mulhall, SCOTUS Docket No. 12-312,
11th Circuit] , then, is: Whether intangible things can be "deliver[ed]" under Section 302(a) (2) of the Labor Management Relations Act, which makes it unlawful for employers "to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or thing of value ... to any labor organization." 29 U.S.C. Section 186(a)(2).
Operationally, under the " neutrality agreements" businesses help labor unions in organization efforts in exchange for labor peace. For example: An employer might grant access to employee lists or agree to remain neutral in exchange for union concessions, such as giving up the right to organize workers.
In the instant case before the Court, a Florida greyhound track and casino agreed to allow labor union access to worker information as well as casino grounds, and to allow a unionization vote by cards collected from workers, rather than a secret ballot. The union, in exchange, agreed to spend $ 100,000 in support of a gambling referendum and to refrain from picketing during the union drive.
The case is particularly relevant to the hospitality industry, where these types of arrangements are common.
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) con-
sidered whether so-called "neutrality agreements" between labor unions and employers violate
federal labor laws.
The key issue in the case [ Unite Here Local 355 vs. Mulhall, SCOTUS Docket No. 12-312,
11th Circuit] , then, is: Whether intangible things can be "deliver[ed]" under Section 302(a) (2) of the Labor Management Relations Act, which makes it unlawful for employers "to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or thing of value ... to any labor organization." 29 U.S.C. Section 186(a)(2).
Operationally, under the " neutrality agreements" businesses help labor unions in organization efforts in exchange for labor peace. For example: An employer might grant access to employee lists or agree to remain neutral in exchange for union concessions, such as giving up the right to organize workers.
In the instant case before the Court, a Florida greyhound track and casino agreed to allow labor union access to worker information as well as casino grounds, and to allow a unionization vote by cards collected from workers, rather than a secret ballot. The union, in exchange, agreed to spend $ 100,000 in support of a gambling referendum and to refrain from picketing during the union drive.
The case is particularly relevant to the hospitality industry, where these types of arrangements are common.
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: CHARLES WARE'S SCOTUS UPDATE: FAIR HOUSING CASE SE...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: CHARLES WARE'S SCOTUS UPDATE: FAIR HOUSING CASE SE...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . We are " here to make a difference." Less than a month before its scheduled December 4th, 2013 heari...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)