News & Publications

Minear calls the situation “a frustrating game right now. You have to be prepared for how to play that game. It’s totally unpredictable.”

The Virginia UM/UIM statute, Va. Code §38.2-2206, has yet again been amended by the legislature. SB1293 was signed into law by the Governor and became effective July 1, 2019. This bill clarifies the 2015 amendment to Virginia Code §38.2-2206, which allowed liability carriers to tender their limits and shift the duty to defend its insured to the UM/UIM carrier.

This bill solves several problems with the 2015 iteration of §38.2-2206. First, in Section K, it states that if a release explicitly indicates it is being executed pursuant to §38.2-2206, any release language inconsistent with the code section is void. This code update should encourage attorneys for the plaintiffs to sign a properly worded release.

Second, the amendment clarifies the nature of the relationship between the tortfeasor and the UIM carrier’s counsel. Subsection K plainly states there is no attorney-client relationship

Workers' Compensation Case Watch

In Umana v. Clark Construction Group, the claimant was injured in a work accident.  The claimant saw a doctor for his work-related injuries.  In his report, the doctor outlined the claimant’s light duty restrictions but also said “there is no light duty work available, so he remains unable to work at this time.”  In his office notes each month, the doctor repeated that because there was no light duty available, the claimant remained unable to work.  The Deputy Commissioner found that the claimant was totally disabled during those periods.

By: Megan Watson

Litigation is often the only way forward for immigrants. That was what U.S. Army Specialist Junfei Ge concluded as he waited nearly three years for the “expedited” naturalization he was promised by the U.S. government when he enlisted under the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program.

Nine lawyers from McCandlish Holton were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers In America© for 2020. The entire group of recognized attorneys have been continuously recognized for five years or longer. 

By: Jim Snyder

When a new case first comes in, certain pieces of information facilitate our initial investigation. Of course, when a lawsuit is the first notice of loss, everyone is starting the defense with little to no information to pass along. However, in most instances, the client has received some essential information before the claim becomes a lawsuit and finds its way to us.

Immediate access to these three things helps us attack the case:

1) Accurate contact information for the named insured and the tortfeasor, if different. This would include at least a phone number and a physical address. Most files arrive with the name and address of the named insured, but being able to pick

Workers' Compensation Case Watch

In Clarke v. Hughes Center, LLC., the claimant established a treating physician relationship with a pain management doctor in Danville, VA. The claimant later moved out of state, but continued having appointments with the same treating physician. The claimant was traveling 320 miles round-trip to see the doctor. The defendants filed an Employer’s Application for Hearing seeking a change in treating physician. The Deputy Commissioner denied the Employer’s Application.  

On review, the Full Commission listed the six-factors it considers to justify a change in treating physician: 1) inadequate treatment is being rendered; 2) a specialist’s treatment is needed but

Looking through the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act, you won’t find “marketing” or “duty to market” anywhere in the legislated sections of the Act. Instead, this frequently contested topic appears deep in the case notes of §65.2-510, a statutory provision dealing with the claimant’s refusal of employment.  

History

In J.A. Foust Coal Co. v. Messer, 195 VA. 762 (1954), the Supreme Court laid the ground work for the modern marketing rule with this single sentence: “one who has suffered a partial physical disability may obtain total incapacity payments if, because of his disability, he is unable to market his remaining capacity for work.” The consequence of this new rule was that the partially disabled

Workers' Compensation Case Watch

In Williams v. CJ Designs, Inc.,  VA00001427406 (July 8, 2019), the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission found that a claim arose out of the employment when an employee was injured while straightening up after bending from the waist with nothing in her hands.

The claimant, a Certified Nursing Assistant, was helping a patient into a car when she injured her back. The claimant bent straight forward from her waist, with her arms in a U-shape so she could scoop them under the patient’s legs and pivot the patient’s feet in front of her. She had already touched the patient’s feet, did not have anything in her hands, and was straightening from the waist when she felt a pop in her back. The claimant confirmed that she had performed this action many times and that it was not in any way awkward or unusual. The Deputy Commissioner found that the claimant’s injury did not arise out of the employment.

The Commission REVERSED, finding that the claimant was required to