In a cool move to provide more public access to Nevada courts, the Nevada Supreme Court announced that it will begin live webcasting oral arguments.

The webcasts will be available through the court's website, at www.nvsupremecourt.us, tentatively beginning in March.

The Las Vegas Sun's Stephanie Tavares reports on important changes in federal anti-discrimination law, of which employers must be aware. Congress passed amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act, which went into effect January 1.

The legislative and regulatory changes went into effect Jan. 1. They are expected to make it easier for employees to be classified as disabled.

In Nevada and other states under jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it is still a violation of the act to fail to engage in the interactive process -- discussing an employee's limitations and potential accommodations -- with a disabled employee.

Currently in Nevada, police cannot pull over a driver who is not wearing a seatbelt. Drivers who are pulled over for another reason and who are found to not be wearing a seatbelt can still be ticketed for failure to buckle up.

A new seatbelt bill has been introduced in the Senate which would allow police officers to pull drivers over for suspicion of failure to wear a seatbelt.

The fine for the offense would remain at $25.

You can check out the bill here

The Reno Gazette Journal reported on a controversial ruling in federal court regarding patient privacy under federal and Nevada law.

The issue arose in a wrongful death case. The plaintiff brought suit against the pharmaceutical company manufacturing the drug taken by her husband to treat his heart condition.

The pharmaceutical company's attorneys requested to interview the decedent's doctor, over the plaintiff's objection.

According to the article, the plaintiff's attorney contended that "only written hospital or medical records should be made available once a lawsuit is filed, not personal communication with a doctor."

However, the judge ruled that Nevada law and HIPAA do not prohibit the defendant's lawyers from doing so. The reasoning? The judge said that filing a lawsuit puts the person's condition at issue, providing an exception to the privilege.

What do the statutes say?

Nevada law generally provides for a doctor-patient privilege: "A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications among himself, his doctor or persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the doctor, including members of the patient's family." NRS 49.225

The exception leading to this controversy comes from NRS 49.245(3), which says that no privilege applies "to written medical or hospital records relevant to an issue of the condition of the patient in any proceeding in which the condition is an element of a claim or defense."

The statute expressly provides an exception for written records, leaving the testimony of the physician arguably subject to privilege. The judge's ruling in this case opens up a defense attorney's ability to speak directly with a plaintiff or decedent's physician, despite explicit reference in the statute for such an interview.

A safety alert in the February 2007 issue of Consumer Reports says at least two of the 12 infant car seats they investigated -- all of which come with packaging touting federal approval -- should be recalled altogether due to doubts about their safety in a frontal crash. The magazine's crash testers are investigating eight more seats after raising doubts about their ability to withstand a side impact. Asking "What if this were your child?", the magazine's original article reported dummy "infants" violently twisted within their seats, thrown within the carrier from the base of the seat, or flying 30 feet across the laboratory.

Car seats sold in Europe performed better in the crash tests, Consumer Reports found, noting that European Union safety regulations are stricter than those in the United States and often include a side-impact test.

For more information and the full article, please click here.

This is an update to the earlier blog, Bush Administration Passed Regulstions Allowing Corporate Immunity for Negligence, first published on January 23, 2009.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) last-minute regulation deals a shocking blow to consumers injured by railroads that transport hazardous materials, according to the American Association for Justice (AAJ). The final rule, designed to enhance crashworthiness of rail tank cars for transportation of dangerous materials, includes language that would preempt state tort law claims.

In the final rule, PHMSA and FRA dismissed comments filed last year by AAJ and labor unions, saying federal claims can be preempted if the railroad company exceeds the minimum safety requirements. This comes just weeks after preemption language was also included in a railroad regulation establishing security measures for railroads transporting hazardous materials. The regulations are in direct conflict with Congressional intent, which passed legislation which clearly stated that the Federal Railroad Safety Act was never intended to preempt state tort claims and that victims of Minot could receive justice.

For the full article, please click here.