Our firm prides itself in being “green” and we strive to be as paperless a law firm as possible. In addition to scanning all of the documents that we generate, we also receive all of our faxes as email attachments thereby eliminating the need to print. When producing larger documents to other attorneys, we put those files on CD in a pdf format. In the past three years, our firm has saved tens of thousands of pieces of paper from being printed and, consequently, we’ve significantly reduced the need for storage. The legal profession is heading in the “paperless” direction and we believe that our firm has taken a strong step forward in protecting the environment and readying itself for the future of litigation.

Bodily injury may not become apparent for days or weeks after an accident.  For this reason, even if it is uncertain whether a personal injury claim may ultimately exist, we suggest that accident victims keep a diary or log of their pain and/or other symptoms in the days and weeks following the incident.  In litigation, it is not uncommon for a defendant to make the claim that “the victim must not have been injured because he/she did not immediately seek treatment for their pain.”  Having a diary/log helps to document the progression of the pain/injury is a useful tool that will assist in overcoming this defense.

Attorney Brad Kelsky was able to overcome a legal challenge to the admissibility of Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker’s opinion on mold-related personal injury claims thereby allowing the doctor to testify at trial.  As seen elsewhere in this blog, mold-related personal injury claims are very difficult to prove.  In any case where these types of personal injury claims are claimed, the defense usually challenges the propriety of the plaintiff’s expert’s medical opinion.   In Florida, this is called a Frye challenge.  Under Frye, the plaintiff must prove that the expert’s methodology is generally accepted by the scientific community.  In a recent case in Collier County, Florida, two of the defendants challenged Dr. Shoemaker’s opinions and each brought their own expert witness to testify at the Frye hearing.  Brad E. Kelsky Esq., counsel for the plaintiffs, was able to establish that Ritchie Shoemaker, M.D.’s methodology in reaching his opinion was generally accepted by the scientific community.   For this reason, the court ruled against both defendants and ruled that Dr. Shoemaker will be able to offer his medical opinions about the plaintiffs’ personal injuries and how those injuries were related to exposure to a water damaged building.  This is a very significant victory for the case in Collier County and for those cases in other states where Dr. Shoemaker’s methodology has been challenged.