This was a lawsuit that had no chance of success. Texas law is very clear, as cited in the article. Methodist should look to Sections 9 & 10 of the civil practice and remedies code.
Why should Methodist look to §9-10 when they won the case? Doesn’t that mean they know the law and applied their employment-at-will rules in accordance with TX law?
I was curious myself so I googled it and it appears it is in regards to filing frivolous type suits and the sanctions that can be applied. My guess Retired Risk Manager is saying Methodist should look into sanctions that can be applied against those that brought the suit.
Give yourself three cheers for doing a little research before posting an uninformed reply. Many plaintiff attorneys don’t even know that those sections exist. And the plaintiff attny compounded his actions by citing a “law” that does not exist. The attny, personally, can be liable for all of Methodist’s legal costs.
In a story posted a few weeks ago, the plaintiff’s attorney said the hospital violated a state law. Too bad he never disclosed that state law to the judge…it could have made a yuge (sic) difference. /sarcasm
This was a lawsuit that had no chance of success. Texas law is very clear, as cited in the article. Methodist should look to Sections 9 & 10 of the civil practice and remedies code.
Why should Methodist look to §9-10 when they won the case? Doesn’t that mean they know the law and applied their employment-at-will rules in accordance with TX law?
I was curious myself so I googled it and it appears it is in regards to filing frivolous type suits and the sanctions that can be applied. My guess Retired Risk Manager is saying Methodist should look into sanctions that can be applied against those that brought the suit.
Ahhhhh, okay. That makes total sense then. Thank you for explaining that.
Give yourself three cheers for doing a little research before posting an uninformed reply. Many plaintiff attorneys don’t even know that those sections exist. And the plaintiff attny compounded his actions by citing a “law” that does not exist. The attny, personally, can be liable for all of Methodist’s legal costs.
In a story posted a few weeks ago, the plaintiff’s attorney said the hospital violated a state law. Too bad he never disclosed that state law to the judge…it could have made a yuge (sic) difference. /sarcasm