Yes, with prejudice seems entirely unfair to the plaintiff. It would be annoying for the defendant to have it dragged out but that's minor compared to the plaintiff not being able to file again.
@@tonyslaughter8954 Wearing a mask is NOT that tough. If you have COPD and don't have the strength to push and pull air through a mask you've had a year to realize it, find a mask you can work with or bring in another attorney as second chair. But showing up at the last minute crying that you can't work within the system is the definition of malingering.
@@EthosAtheos, *some people have emotional and/or physical disabilities that prevent them from ever wearing a face mask. Breathing is a major life function, and no one has the right to interfere with anyone's right to breath freely!*
NAL, but I'd bet the client would get an appeal if he came in with a new lawyer, that wore a mask, and said he was suing the previous one for incompetence
My bank has you briefly dip your mask when you see yourself on the closed-circuit television monitor. I have to remind myself not to do that at a supermarket that happens to have a bank in it. Bank I use doesn't have any branches in a supermarket.
I think its potentially ideal for the client in that he can sue the attorney and have less trouble winning than he might have experienced in the original case.
@@edmundwest5636 Doubt it since it's not an incompetence issue but a health issue. It's difficult to argue a case saying someone is faking medical problems especially when the person is older and will be able to produce evidence of physical ailments you are bound to have a few of at that age which will be even worse at the time that case comes to trial. Not to mention there is a good chance the lawyer was genuinely having trouble as he was pointing out not just shortness of breath which could be faked but profuse sweating from strain which I'm not sure how you fake while sitting in front of someone.
I worked in hazmat and lived in a respirator..Now I'm old and couldn't do it..There are people that have psychological issues and just cannot function in a respirator or mask.. Regardless of there age..
It's not just psychological issues but there are also people with physiological issues. This has been known in the medical community long before Covid appear.
@@debra-vs first off masks don't save anyone. Yes forcing a medical decision on citizens is tyranny. The goverment has no say so over my body. Forcing choices that could go against personal, political, or religious views is by law discrimination. What does Saudi Arabia have to do with any of this?
If the attorney has a legitimate health issue, isnt that considered a disability that is protected? Judge or not, you cant discriminate against someone for a medical disability
Unless the accommodation would impact the safety of others. 29 CFR 1630.15 (b)(2) "an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of the individuals or others in the workplace (see 1620.2(r) defining direct threat.)." That's a quote from the ADA. Don't believe me? Look it up, I gave you the relevant citation. It's word for word from the statute
I'm wondering why the attorney didn't take advantage of the accomodations that the judge offered. That would (probably?) delayed events long enough for him to get a medical opinion about his use of a mask or given him enough time to familiarize another attorney with the case. Also, his own health may be an issue here. I suspect, though, that something else may be going on that we're not privy to.
I get the impression that even a doctor's note wouldn't excuse him from following the safety protocols. But I also believe that there is something else going on here. It sounds like the story was a more dry rendition of a power struggle, where the lawyer thought that he would win if he held out against the mask mandate which he clearly doesn't agree with, and the judge saw it for what it was and called him on it, and once it was clear that neither were going to swerve and a head on collision was imminent, the judge showed who was boss. Sort of like the scene in the Original Indiana Jones movie, where Indy is faced with a swordsman with a huge sword that clearly outranked Indy's so he solved the difference of opinion with his gun. The judge flexed, and the lawyer didn't, so lawyer loses
I was vaguely on the judges side up untill he dismissed with prejudice. There was no reason for that. The guy asked for an adjournment on the grounds that he was medically unfit to continue. So, the judge's response is to screw over the client? Something seems off there.
Judges have to be extremely conscious of setting precedent. The rules were extremely clear, and a couple judges had already died from Covid. This prompted the judge to adopt a zero tolerance stance. The backlog of cases is MASSIVE right now, and there's no time to endlessly delay and retry cases because a string of lawyers are using masks as an excuse. It's like parents getting thrown off a plane because their 4-year old throws a tantrum and refuses to wear a mask he's never had to wear before. Sure, there's some room for sympathy there. But you knew the rules ahead of time. You had ample time to train, prepare, and come up with contingencies ahead of time. You just didn't do that. If one person gets to skirt the rules, a mob of others will quickly follow. Precedence is just too important in the courts to let this slide.
What ever happened, to the Con stil tution. I do agree through the attorney should have had a backup plan with another lawyer to take over. Ultimately though I believe the judge was brea kinggg the lawww.
@@SW-fm6up The judge flat out told the lawyer that he would have to dismiss it, the lawyer made the choice by refusing all accommodations or to replace himself. The judge had no options. A judge cannot prevent you from being screwed over by your attorney. If your attorney scams you like this, you have to sue them for malpractice.
@@debra-vs how does one "accomodate" a condition like asthma? How about congestive heart failure? Moving to a smaller room doesn't "accomodate"....because it does not consider the underlying condition, it merely says "you still have to, so.." I hope he sues the judge because allof the "accomodations" did not resolve the underlying issue. Essentially, it was a farce.
Judge did a great job by dismissing the case. The only study that I am aware of that was conducted by the American Pulmonary Association tested two groups of men. Healthy under 50 and over 60 with COPD (that required supplemental oxygen). They found no notable differences in oxygen levels. I live in a community with lots of farming. Our summers often hit mid to high 90s. Farm workers are covered from head to toe and wearing masks because of the dust. They are up and down ladders, carrying fruit bags and thinning trees. A few years ago, we had severe fires. A large part of our homeless population uses bicycles to get around. Because of the air quality, they were wearing masks, riding bicycles, pulling trailers of their belongings. Now I could go into playing "combat sports" in the Marines. We wore a full face gas mask, flak jacket and helmet. We played soccer and football in 100 degree weather (I was stationed in 29 Palms). It wasn't uncommon for us to have to lift up our masks to let the sweat drain out. But we played and had fun. That being said, I am very skeptical about anyone who claims they can't breath when wearing a mask. BTW - If you look at how much air the average adults breaths per minute and the flow rate of the masks, that also puts their claim into question.
Years ago an attorney screwed up the paperwork on a foreclosure (a routine procedure) that cost my company a bunch of money. Good luck collecting from the lawyer or his malpractice insurance. We finally settled for about one tenth of the claim to avoid more legal costs.
If the lawyer was having a heart attack, the Judge wouldn't get away with saying, "well, I'll let you sit down while you talk." Breathing is an essential life activity not subject to judicial order. The attorney, as an Officer of the Court, said he was physically unable to proceed due to an unanticipated breathing problem. That equals a continuance, not a dismissal in front of any reasonable court.
I don't think the judge believed the lawyer was having trouble breathing and just didn't want to wear a mask.Where I think the lawyer messed up was by saying another lawyer in the firm could not handle the case.
@@leothenomad5675 Maybe the judge didn't believe him. I can see it both ways though. I have trouble breathing in a mask myself. I don't know if I have some odd claustrophobia or because I have sinus issues it affects me but I can only stand to wear a mask for a few minutes before I'm clawing it off my face. I may look ok on the outside but on the inside my heart rate spikes and I'm kind of in a panic to breathe. I suspect that this lawyer might have been feeling the same. I think he wore the shield as a solution because he already knew a mask would cause this issue. In most places the face shield is acceptable. It's a bad situation all around but the big loser is the plaintiff in this case.
@@Robocline Yes but unless thats the first time he has worn a facemask in a year (highly doubtful) this is a problem that he knew about and should have made arrangements for. When the judge tried to make accommodations and he refused them he left the judge no choice.
@@leothenomad5675 It depends on how the rules are written in that court. Maybe the lawyer was under the impression that the face shield was acceptable and the whole thing got flipped on it's head when he got there. I'm sure this was the first time he's been in the court since they restarted. I think the face shield was most definitely his attempt to be in compliance and they deemed after the fact it wasn't good enough.
Without being there, it's difficult to asses, however, if the lawyer was having a heart attack, the correct response would be to call 911. This lawyer didn't appear to request medical attention. He didn't ask for medical attention. He wanted to take his mask off. The fact of the matter is that lawyers aren't medical professionals and vice versa. The correct action in this case was for someone to request help. If his signs and symptoms were what he said they were, he needed to be evaluated. Since he didn't seem to want that, I find his argument to be rather suspect.
Recently I observed on walking into a liquor store that there was a pre-covid sign that refused service to anyone wearing a mask, hoody or other face covering. Taped to that sign was another sign requiring customers to wear a mask.
exactly. Everything is so reactionary. Nobody actually uses their brain they just follow the government blindly. Look how well that worked out for native americans.
Not sure about up there in New York but here in Florida if you have a medical condition that you are unable to wear a mask you cannot be forced to wear one. I feel for his client. Through no fault of his own his case was dismissed.
It does make one wonder... trials are transcribed in situ and typically the transcriber is wearing earphones, with microphones for the judge, witness, and each legal team. Perhaps there was no functioning sound system in this the room?
@@AzraelThanatos Face shields are not the same as a mask. They do not stop the virus, to or from the person wearing only the shield. Doctors only wear them to stop infectious diseases from getting a mask wet, which destroys the masks ability to filter.
I might have given him the benefit of the doubt until he said that no other lawyer in his firm could handle the case, this did not seem to be a highly specialized case so I see no reason why someone else could not step in.
I was summoned for Jury duty last week for Superior Court in Catoosa County Georgia. Jury selection took 1.5 days because they broke up the jury pool into 4 smaller groups. It was not a perfect process but they addressed some of the issues raised here... they had a very good sound system, and they allowed everyone the choice of mask or face shield. It makes me question if the NY court made adequate accommodations.
I was forced to wear a mask in court regardless of any medical exemptions only the da was not forced to wear a mask even the judge wore one made me ask who really has the power and authority
There is no such thing as a medical exemption. No one has made of any kind of condition that is even remotely plausible, because no condition exists. The first thing people with diminished lung capacity have to do is wear a mask due to infections.
@@_PatrickO There is a medical exemption with it for various things, it's happened before where courts and others have lost for things with the various disabilities act provisions.
My brother is on Oxygen because of lung damage. He wears a mask when out, and it does not stop him talking. So you are no longer a competent lawyer. If you are copying with mask law you must know this. It is the attorney's responsibility to be able to function. This cannot be a sudden surprise.
@@AzraelThanatos They allow a medical exemption, but none actually exist. It will only be used if some new condition happens that prevents someone from wearing a mask. So if it is a condition you have heard about, it definitely doesn't prevent you from wearing a mask.
@@waltermachnicz5490 I'm not making excuses for an incompetent lawyer, but there are uncommon conditions which cause wearing a mask to be detrimental to a person's health. I have a condition which causes me to not feel thirsty, which causes a drop in blood pressure once I get dehydrated enough. A side effect of that loss of blood pressure is a decrease in oxygen delivery to my brain & other vital organs. The ultimate consequence is that I lose consciousness. The onset of symptoms is sometimes quite rapid. Not wearing a mask makes the difference between being able to breathe deeply enough to stay conscious while finding a place to sit & rehydrate and passing out on my feet. Until I feel the onset of such symptoms, while in public, I do wear a mask though.
What’s truly bizarre is that the attorney didn’t ask for a continuance or buy time to try and figure something out. He was basically telling the judge take it or leave it.
That's what I was thinking too. The lawyer tried to passive aggressive his losing position. I submit his failure to anticipate this is either proof of laziness, craziness or incompetence. My money is on him believing too that the election was stolen, and or that all Clinton supporters are part of a cabal of pedophiles...possibly funding semitic space lazers aimed at california forests.
@@gregtheegg3576 You realize face shields are actually more effective than masks, right? He was wearing a more effective type of face covering (and arguably also a "mask" in the sense that a kabuki mask is a mask), meaning he was, for all intents and purposes, in compliance with the court's rules. He was *68* years old, it's physically taxing to just breathe when you get that old, let alone through a cloth mask. It's ridiculous that the case was dismissed with prejudice. Very poor temper on the part of the judge to completely deny the plaintiff justice for no good reason.
@@tissuepaper9962 That’s hilarious. Neither is effective, unless you’re so close to someone (which you shouldn’t be) that you spray them. I’m guessing that attorney was not close enough to spray people.
How the hell do you punish the plaintiff because their lawyer couldn't breathe and the case was dismissed with prejudice. How the hell is that fair to the plaintiff?
How was it fair to the client for their attorney to come unprepared to follow court rules when he knew what was going to happen? He was a bad attorney who thought he was above the rules of court.
@@sittingindetroit9204 the CDC also committed some of the largest scientific fraud covering up evidence of the MMR vaccine having a 300% higher rate of autism if given to a black boy before the age of three versus a white boy of the same age. So f*** the CDC and tyrannical attorney general. You will not force me to get a vaccine or wear a mask in public.
@@AnonMedic Sorry, I thought you were arguing that you had to wear a mask and could not substitute with a face mask. The way they have gotten around it in Michigan is they pull the operating license of a business if they don't mandate masks and trespass anyone that refuses. Last week, the AG sent a restaurant owner to jail for not following her rules.
The judge was completely wrong. I'm no fan of masks or any of this, but shields are actually more protective than masks. Food service workers can wear shields instead of masks if they are unable, so why couldn't a lawyer in a court room. Lawyer should file an appeal if that's an option.
A microphone would have been a solution as well. I am involved in a Federal trial in VA, and I am hearing impaired. The court accommodates me with wireless headphones so I can hear.
Steve, as a retired attorney for the City of NY I agree that attorneys often cover for each other and trying a case is different from a pre-trial conference but this was during the jury selection process which any other litigator from his office could have probably handled.
This crap has gotten so completley out of control. If he had a legitimate medical concern and offered a reasonable alternative such as wearing a shield, this is appalling.
it's called communism.our courts are severely compromised.they all need to be sent to guantanamo.Imagine letting a lawyer die in a courtroom if he wasn't given a choice, over a f-in mask.i hope that lawyer somehow finds a way to sue the hell out of NY. not sure how because commie,pedo judges now rule the courts.
If the lawyer meets the conditions that he has a disability and he can't wear the mask in court then all he has to do is go to the Ada and file a complaint and they will phone the court and may even threatened to sue. It's not that hard to make that happen.
p.s- check channel "northern Idaho exposed" - ammon bundy showed up for court but was not allowed into the building because he refused to wear a mask. he was arrested for contempt/not showing up, even though he was outside,arguing with police, who were very aware he was present. if we don't act fast, this country will be Venezuela in 2 years
@@pattiannepascual ammon bundy and his family are a bunch of welfare queens. They want to get access to lands for grazing, they just don’t want to pay anything for it. And then they broke into that wildlife refuge. Another idiot move.
Give this a re-listen, Ryan. The judge offered to recess so the attorney could be checked out, among other things. Appealable? Sure. Chance of success? 50/50.
"Checked out" for what? There is Still no valid proof in primary research literature that coronavirus causes disease or that coronavirus even exists. Masks don't prevent contagion and are actually harmful. The PCR test is STILL completely meaningless because it has never been validated against a gold standard, so its sensitivity and specificity are completely unknown and could well be zero for all we know. The alleged genome of the alleged coronavirus was only patched together by computer simulations, never actually purified and analyzed physically. The vaccine was developed based on fraudulent data. Read "The Contagion Myth" by Tom Cowan MD and follow the citations for further details. This goes way beyond just one lawyers discomfort with masks.
@@raygunsforronnie847 Judge should have dismissed without prejudice as the opposing side stated they had no objection. That is why this will be easily overturned also because an attorney has an issue with mask and ability to breathe (physically seen in court) court should have moved to a virtual format if they couldn't accommodate the attorney as a plaintiff and the defendant has the right to the attorney they choose and judge didn't have the authority to overrule that choice. Only the client can choose to substitute counsel and not the judge.
Who cares about this lawyer, the dismissal with prejudice prevents the injured party from hiring another lawyer? Why was that not an option for the plaintiff?
I just discovered your videos (I know, where have I been!) and find them fascinating and informative and I have gone back to view many of your earlier posts. In addition to your videos I have enjoyed watching the growth in the displays on the wall behind you! Beautiful
This is just jury selection, I'm confused as to why another lawyer or even paralegal couldn't participate with the other lawyer just being present. I doubt they would be going directly to trial and opening arguments, once the selection was completed. Something seems amiss, very amiss, enough for the lawyer to risk malpractice and adjudication by the bar. Of course, there are ADA violations by the court also. Heck its possible the lawyer had a food poisoning reaction, or just anxiety from being on a break from being in the courtroom, or many other things.
The attorney is not disabled under the definitions of the ADA, nor did he seek accommodation under the Act. Further the court offered several accommodations anyway, all of which the attorney declined. If he was unable to perform his duties he should have simply asked the court for a continuance and telling the judge he felt ill (which he did, and the court did not require him to continue).
@@raygunsforronnie847 I would agree with you if the judge hadn't dismissed the case _with prejudice._ Completely denied the plaintiff a chance at justice. He was wearing a face shield, which is literally more effective than a face mask. He wore a face covering, it's not like he was being a jackass and just trying to dodge the mask rule. Something else was going on here, maybe his tone was bad, maybe the judge was having some kind of shitty day, maybe the judge somehow really believes that this was justice. Who knows?
I have a friend who was just involuntarily retired by his company because it is a service based company and their policy is not to let employees work past 68 because they begin to have various problems at that age and they are unable to serve the customers as well....and that's why retirement pensions exist. Some politicians, lawyers and judges just don't know when to retire...because nobody makes them retire until they are pissing themselves during a proceeding.
I have to call BS on the face shield being any better than a face mask. I have always had a medical condition that makes it harder for me to breath. I worked in a factory, and had to wear a face shield during work to protect my face. It gets very hot under a face shield with sweat, and heat getting trapped inside it. It basically creates it's own very humid environment that is not any better than a medical face mask. Possibly worse actually because it just gets hotter, and cuts you off from getting fresh air. While with a mask. At least your not sticking your face (nose, and mouth) into something akin to a plastic bag.
Thinking about the Lawyer, If he now can't represent clients in court, he either needs an admin job with his firm or his firm need to medically retire him. Perhaps the malpractice suit which will follow this will help push things along in this regard.
2021 is like a never ending opposites day. On a side note, sounds like the attorney is setting himself up for a future lawsuit. He made a point to go on the record about his condition. Based on the science and statistics, I suspect it will be one of many.
Steve, about a year ago you told us about a case in which the judge wouldn't let anyone wear masks and two weeks later the judge died from COVID. (I think that's the way it went)
@@joelquinn2037Here is the episode: Unclosed Court Catastrophe - Ep. 6.413, April 12, 2020. It was a packed courtroom and an attorney complained about the lack of social distancing and was told by the judge to like it or leave. The judge died "of complications from what is going on now", is the way Steve puts it. He then says "other judges in the courthouse are also sickened by the disease". You might want to listen to the episode.
@@AnonMedic May I refer you to the April 1, 2020 publication of the New York State Bar Association article; LATEST NEWS 4.1.2020 Brooklyn Justice Johnny Lee Baynes Dies of Coronavirus Complications.
If I were the plaintiff, I would have demanded a continuance to obtain substitute council. If I were the lawyer, I would have asked whether an oxygen mask would be acceptable. Finally, a microphone and loudspeaker might be employed. I cannot support the plaintiff's right to his day in court being curtailed due to a disagreement between his lawyer and the court. If it was dismissed anyway, I would appeal.
If the lawyer had known he may have trouble, he could have gotten an exemption from masks, from his doctor. The court would only be able to verify that with a court order to release medical records showing that he did in fact have an exemption from wearing a mask. This involves release of protected medical information, and can be complicated, and vary state to state.
I know people who can't wear a mask because the fact that they experience a physiological panic attack that causes this variety of issue. That said if you are affected by such a situation, you should be cognizant of what your responsibilities are, and find a way to meet them.
When a judge dismisses a case, does it always say with or without prejudice? My MCM case got dismissed but it doesn’t say with or without, is there a way to find out?
If it doesn't specifically say "with prejudice", I would assume that means it is without prejudice, because dismissing with prejudice is an extra thing. No idea what specific categories of judgements can't be appealed, which could make specifically saying it redundant. Try searching [your state] [type of case] plus words like "ruling explanation" or "appeals", or ask a lawyer if it's something significant.
What if he had proceeded under pressure from the judge and collapsed? Would the judge have been liable, would that have put the judge in conflict as counsel was likely to be pressing charges against the judge. Are judges immune from accessibility/disability legislation?
The judge offered a recess so the attorney could be evaluated, the attorney declined. "Pressing charges" means filing a criminal complaint, which would be done by the DA. Courtrooms are not exempt from the ADA, but the word disability has specific, legal definitions under the Act, and the Act requires only "reasonable accommodation" of the disability, not necessarily the disabled person's choice of possible accommodation. I'd assert that the attorney is not disabled as defined under the Act and therefor lacks jurisdiction, and I'd also demonstrate that the Court offered appropriate consideration of the attorney's health and safety by offering a recess, by offering to move the proceeding to another, smaller room, and by offering acceptance of alternate council. All were declined.
please note: if you had a 1.4% chance of winning the powerball lottery, you'd be mortgaging your house to buy tickets. Yet, somehow gambling with your life these odds are negligible? Not to mention you cite the mean average probability, which increases dramatically for different groups.
If you can breathe thru them easily don't bet they won't let the mythical virus get through as easily. If you can smell your fart through one, it won't stop a "virus"
@@frankfacts6207 The odor of a fart comes mainly from hydrogen sulfide molecules iirc with is about 1/1000th the size of virion. Further, virions travel in water droplets that are much larger than the virion themselves.
@entItyVR My other comment also applies to breathing. O2 molecules are much, much, much smaller than virion particles or the water droplets they travel in. Think of a mask like a sieve. The holes in the mask are plenty large enough for O2 to pass thru, water droplets, not so much.
@entItyVR The breath follows the path of least resistance. For cloth masks and surgical masks the exhaled air just blows out the sides and top between the mask and face. If you wear more masks then the air flow will be less through the masks and more through the sides due to resistance. These masks are really giving people a false sense of security only. What matters more is actual reduction of infection, hospitalization and death than reduction of aerosols from masked mannequins or from simulation experiments. The CDC published that mask mandates have only like 1-2% decrease in "cases" within the first few months so this has been a waste of time, as expected, but data is less important than junk science.
the 3 ply disposable masks don't restrict your breathing at all they just stop your droplets from flying. If he's had covid maybe he should have waited longer to get back to trial work.
No kidding. This attorney needs an oxygen tank and an unobtrusive PA -- maybe a little speaker on his O2 tank tied to a little stage mic around his ear.
The lawyer showed up in a face shield so he knew that he had a problem with masks. Therefore he should have talked to the court before the trial or found another lawyer.
How did the court define "face covering"? Furthermore, I think a reasonable person would say that a full-face shield is, in fact, a type of mask (like a kabuki mask), so even if the court rules specified that people had to wear "face *masks"* he could still be argued to have been in compliance, especially when almost every other place requiring "face masks" was fine with face shields. I would be more inclined to side with the judge if the case had been dismissed without prejudice. Dismissing with prejudice is, IMO, ridiculous.
He offered to wear a face shield. That should have been acceptable considering the circumstances. At the very least, I believe the with prejudice part was excessive.
It doesn't filter out droplets, unlike a mask, so it does little if anything to protect other people. The point of a face shield is to give the _wearer_ (not others) a bit more protection when used _in conjunction with_ a mask.
ADA applies to all public facilities. Key factors - disability has a specific meaning under the Act. What others think colloquially doesn't matter, just sayin'. The Act requires "reasonable accommodation". Attorney claims mask stops his voice from filling the room, court offers smaller room. He says he feels faint - court offers a recess, which he declines. Court asks if substitute council is available (which would involve a recess or continuance) and he says no. The Court offered accommodation; whether it was sufficient to be "reasonable" will be up to another judge if the ADA were deemed to apply (which I doubt). As for HIPPA, I don't see where the Court wanted the attorney's medical records.
In case anyone is wondering, in New York the trial court is called Supreme Court because it is supreme in its jurisdiction. That means it is capable of hearing any type of case.
Does the client have a case against his attorney due to his lawyer's actions getting the case tossed for matters not following the judges instructions? Edit: I should have watched the entire video, this was answered in the last 30 seconds.
15:49 hey I know your blind but I can't accommodate you could you send in one of your coworkers who can see? I feel like there is a law for circumstances such as these the ada or something like that.
Another example of the misplaced power granted to Judges. There seems to be zero accountability expected from the judge here in ascertaining whether or not the , "in distress Lawyer", is even able to rationally act while he is in distress. Any judge who completely ignores the well medical being of a person directly under his/her power should face some kind of scrutiny from superiors. What if the Lawyer dropped and convulsed because the judge didn't give a hoot about making sure he was ok.? Seems like there are too many in authority that don't have to face accountability for the actions or controls they impose. That Lawyer may not even have been mentally capable at that point.?
Great job Steve. I was already in the middle of texting a paragraph asking what about the client in this case and how it affected them. And as usual with less than 2 minutes left in video. In true Lehto form Mr. Thoroughby explained it to the Tee. How it affected the client. Lol , I think think I'm misfiring 1 cylinder today. Great video Steve.
(Canada) A friend of mine was hit by a car back up out of a parking spot. She filed a lawsuit. Her attorney failed to file in time. Every one was upset about her attorney until I pointed out that even if the lawsuit was successful, Canada limits the award to practically nothing. Also the driver was unemployed and insurance was the bare minimum. In the letter the lawyer wrote her, all but admitted to malpractice. The amount that she won from the lawyer was 8 times the amount her original suit would have been, assuming she could have collected it. The lawyer settled the case very quickly.
Also the courthouse would need to produce a health risk assessment before they could legally enforce that I believe. For some reason all the rules about what masks will and won't do have been ignored by the government now we're before 2020 there were certain rules and OSHA and other entities were responsible for enforcing.
The courts are generally free to establish their own rules of trial procedure. Sue them if you don't like it (and people do...). I suspect in most jurisdictions the courts have had their occupancy limits and layouts vetted by the city/county/state health department and appropriate HR departments of staff. As for OSHA... until very recently the agency has done very little in the way of investigating workplace transmission or enforcement, nor has it offered much in the way of meaningful guidance to employers. That said, the agency is woefully under funded and new workplace hazards emerge with regularity.
He could have been retaining some CO2 when wearing a mask, but it’s so easy to cheat a little and pull the mask down a little and breathe through your nose. Also, can’t they use a microphone if he is having trouble projecting?
I thought face shields had been accepted as an equally effective substitute for a mask. I googled face shield vs mask and found a lot of conflicting medical opinions on the matter. Two examples: "A 2014 study showed that when tested against an influenza-infused aerosol from a distance of 18 inches away, a face shield reduced exposure by 96% during the period immediately after a cough. The face shield also reduced the surface contamination of a respirator by 97%." "There is no evidence that face shields, that are open by design, prevent the inhalation or exhalation of viruses. For the average member of the public, who is not exposed to splash or splatter events in the face, a shield is unhelpful. A cloth face covering, instead, is the best option for protection."
"I can't breath" and the judge shows no compassion. Is there any carry over in governmental learning? Any personal compassion, nope, none, nada just follow the rule.
I can't breathe is bullshit, not getting enough oxygen or too much carbon dioxide is also bullshit. Paper masks do not make you short of breath. It's psychological at best
@@colindooley4422 Any proof to backup your claims? CFM flow tests through a paper mask vs no mask? Oxygen saturation levels for people of varying health conditions, age groups, exertion levels, etc.? Preferable sources would not have a .gov at the end of them.
Courts ain't Burger King, you don't get it your way. They have broad leeway in setting trial procedure and likely had their requirements in conformance with state or local health dept requirements. Tell a judge to KMA and enjoy the vacation you'll get.
@@raygunsforronnie847 it's the fed. Law if you say you are medically exempt they aren't supposed to bother u, fed law says if u say u are exempt they say sorry for bothering you and move on.
I feel for his client.Hopefully the client is not financially broke.But yeah,this would hurt most of us if a lawyer & a judge did this to our situation...😑
I have a solution. Bring in another lawyer from the same firm. The breathing problem lawyer can sit there and when the other lawyer needs to object the breathing-problem lawyer can poke him. The breathing-problem lawyer doesn't need to project, or stand, or talk.
I recently had to stop doing my chosen profession due to age. Are lawyers not aware of this reality? If he can no longer do his job, why didn't the judge report him to the Bar? He should not be a lawyer if he can't physically do what is required of a lawyer.
Trials are held in Leadville CO, altitude 10,000 ft. If you're have difficulty breathing, you should bring your own supplemental oxygen. A mask would nicely hide a nasal cannula. People from sea level are so fragile and dramatic when they're short of breath and have a pounding headache.
The amusing thing is that this could also mean the attorney might have a case for discrimination against the court now. It's why a lot of places have medical exemptions for things there if there is a potential health issue. Especially with the face shield part where he was suggesting it.
Unlikely. The court offered multiple forms of accommodation (and "reasonable accommodation" is what is required under the Americans With Disabilities Act), all of which the attorney declined. The requirement for mask use was disclosed days before this hearing.
@@Omego2K Discrimination claims can effect them. There was a thing that made the news near me about a decade ago where the judge was disciplined and hit over refusing to change venues due to the ADA when someone was incapable of walking and the courthouse had an issue with their elevator. The ADA kind of bypasses a lot of things, same with several other regulations where discrimination claims can come into play.
Crazy idea. Sometimes to get something changes you need to create an incident. I wish the attorney would have proceeded until he had a medical incident to where he requested an ambulance. The rule would either change or the trial postponed.
I think it is fair to judge the collective intellect of the populace of NY by the people it elects to public office. The judge, the attorney and the client are all fine examples of what we have come to expect from those who continue to dwell in that particular asylum.
Several months ago when I went through the jury selection process in Iowa Federal court, all of us jurors wore masks, and the lawyers and judge would wear a mask or shield. There was also a microphone and speakers to amplify their voices. It was hard to understand all of the words coming from them sometimes, but overall everything worked out okay. I was not selected for the jury.
I have generally excellent hearing, and I’ve been shocked to realize since everyone has been wearing masks just how much we subtly rely on lip reading and/or facial expressions to confirm what we think we hear others saying. I rarely have to ask people to repeat themselves when there are no masks involved, but it’s become all too common to have to ask since COVID and masks.
Seems like a clear cut violation of due process and arguably discrimination based on physical disability to me. If the courts impose these restrictions they *have* to make reasonable accommodations.
@@allangibson2408 yes, but people do not want to believe that. It seems like it is often entitled jerks who can not accept any inconvenience trying to justify their desires. As to not being able to breathe in a mask I have been there, got very sick the fall and my lungs damaged, as well as other effects. Could breath under a mask, but would start to have major issues if I had to do anything physical. But I was having other breathing issues at the time even without a mask, and the doctors would have been able to identify medical concerns. (Was fine under a mask like 2 months later) Every time I see these I can not wear a mask complaints my first thought is why, what medical condition do you have. As if you do not have one you are either being a baby, refusing to adapt, or should see a doctor as you likely have an undiagnosed condition.
If Dr. Fauci can appear before Congress & remove his mask because he is more than 6 ft. away, why can't the attorney take his mask off while at the table.
I think it was wrong to dismiss with prejudice. I think the court should have instructed the plaintiff to hire new attorneys and let them refile. If not that they could have done things remotely through zoom or something. This is a miscarriage of justice to the claimant in this case. The courts are supposed to work for the people and they failed in that regard.
