This section provides a venue for attorneys to share views and to develop relationships with colleagues in this area of practice. The section offers CLE on issues impacting both tort and insurance law and sends out case updates to its members.
An 86-year-old Nashville woman has become the fourth victim of the fungal meningitis outbreak to file suit against Saint Thomas Outpatient Neurosurgical Center, The Tennessean reports. In a complaint filed late last week, attorneys for Virginia Neely allege that she was sickened after getting two injections of a tainted spinal steroid. She is seeking $3 million in compensatory damages. Neely previously sued the New England Compounding Center, the company blamed for shipping the tainted medicine. That suit, however, has been put on hold because the company has filed for bankruptcy. Neely’s suit is expected to be sent to Judge Joe P. Binkley Jr., who already is handling the three previously filed cases.
IN RE: BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION, ET AL.
Court: TN Court of Appeals
Attorneys:
Steve North, Madison, Tennessee; Richard L. Denney, Lydia JoAnn Barrett, Norman, Oklahoma; Robert L. Langdon, J. Kent Emison, Lexington, Missouri, counsel for the appellants, Nos. 05C-1552 (Torres), 05C-1555 (Rodriguez), 05C-1556 (Santin), 05C-1560 (Hernandez); Douglas S. Johnston, Jr., Nashville, Tennessee, counsel for the appellants, Nos. 05C-1561 (Rivera Ruiz), 05C-1570 (Crispo Valdiva).
Stephen A. Marcum, Huntsville, Tennessee; Gregory G. Garre, Roman Martinez, Washington, DC, for the appellee, Ford Motor Company.
A. Scott Ross, James F. Sanders, Nashville, Tennessee; Marc R. Brousseau, Denver, Colorado; Scott G. Edwards, Dallas, Texas; Craig A. Morgan, Austin, Texas; Warren E. Platt, Phoenix, Arizona, for the appellees, Bridgestone Corporation and Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC.
Judge: COTTRELL
This appeal arises out of the second consolidated case to be tried in a number of related cases involving accidents that occurred in Mexico and allegedly were caused by defective tires and/or vehicles. The trial judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion that he recuse himself. The motion was based upon allegations of the appearance of bias or prejudice. Having reviewed the filings in this appeal under the required de novo standard of review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion.