Why You Should Have A Worker’s Compensation Attorney

Getting hurt at the workplace is always an awful experience. You do not expect that to go through an actual physical ordeal as a part of your duties at the workplace. You take every precaution to ensure you are working safe, but accidents do come up. Many times the accident which causes injury is not something that you could have controlled. While you cannot control the injury you sustain, you can control what you can do after you are injured. You will definitely go to a physician immediately, but outcomes now that there is medical bill to concern yourself with? Do you pay it? Just how do you get your employer to pay the bill?

One percent of hospital visits trigger medical malpractice. And the injured one percent are 20 times more likely to claim medical malpractice than are the other 99 percent.

In industrial and other environments, the business insists how the employees wear safety glasses. Your part of the job it to be sure you have a good pair and wear them every single time you in a work environment. They protect your most important sense-the sensation of sight. Lots of things can in order to eyes in which not taken care of. Particles can become embedded in the eye. A physical object hitting the eyeball can scratch the cornea. Significantly more serious mishaps can even cause loss of sight.

Every question his own instinct, although we be based upon a Lawyer some time we might want to go to the court due on the strong belief on your side. In this cases but if the lawyer is advising an individual settle the claim you may need to discuss this with them either by telling the strong points of your side or by seeking advice to learn whether do you have any uncomfortable side effects for taking your accident compensation claim that they can court.

It is important you ask attorney friends and family members when they know colleagues in this kind field my spouse and i.e. workers compensation. Lawyers usually have the perfect rapport their own colleagues, it doesn’t matter the practicing field. For example: You should also ask a divorce lawyer or real estate attorney if he knows any philadelphia workers compensation attorneys.

The coverage is extremely precise. You’re basically covered for may may happen as an end result of your work description. Usually means you won’t if you obtain injured at work, while doing your duty, you might be covered. Don’t misunderstand includes life long illnesses, like carpal tunnel syndrome. In those cases however, you actuallyhave to reveal that what happened was an effect of function. You need proof, such as a doctor diagnostic, or you can always ask other employees if contain the same symptoms. Actions that occur past work however aren’t taken care of. If you get towards a car accident while in order to be work, you are on very own. Also, if you’re at your work place but you decide to carry out something is not asked on your boss, then you may find yourself on individual as sufficiently.

Make sure the attorney you retain is someone you can function with. If you find a personality conflict a person definitely probably may not be able to with the specific person and will not need want to retain jesus. Discuss his qualifications and fee and exactly what the protocol is with medical malpractice cases. You shouldn’t be afraid must questions. If you can’t question things and receive answers, then you are the actual wrong property.

Will Trump Accidentally Destroy Las Vegas?

President Donald J. Trump’s greatest strength, his success as a businessman, is also his greatest weakness.

Take, for example, China.

For decades, the United States has had what looks like bizarre, self-contradictory positions toward the Peoples Republic of China and Taiwan.

Prior to the Communist Party’s victory in China’s Civil War in 1949, there was only one China (ignoring the warlords and Manchukuo, the puppet state set up by Japan). When Chairman Mao Zedong captured the Mainland, he created a new government, the Peoples Republic of China, and declared the PRC the ruler of all of greater China. This expressly included the island of Formosa, and the little islands close to it, including Kinmen (Quemoy) and Matsu. The former rulers of the Mainland, the Chinese Nationalists, moved the remnants of their government, the Republic of China, to the island of Formosa. They declared the ROC, informally known as Taiwan, as the sovereign government ruling over all of greater China.

Having two separate governments declaring themselves “China” obviously created some problems for the United States.

For example, China is one of the founding members of the United Nations, and one of only five countries which have veto power over everything the rest of the UN might try to do. But which China was the Security Council permanent member?

Which China could send teams to the Olympics?

The U.S. had treaties with the ROC. Did this require the U.S. to use military force if the PRC decided to invade Formosa? In 1960 this almost led to war. And it became a major issue in the U.S. election for president.

At the time, the U.S. only recognized the ROC as the government of all of China. Both candidates, Vice-President Richard M. Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy, pledged to use American force to defend the ROC, or at least the main island of Formosa, from military invasion by the PRC. But Kennedy said it would be impossible to protect Taiwan’s forward positions, the tiny islands of Quemoy and Matsu, more than 100 miles from Formosa and less than six miles from the Mainland. Nixon declared that he would not let Quemoy and Matsu be taken over by the Communists.

The issue was decided without a shooting war, in part because the reality was that the PRC had won the Civil War. The PRC controlled the most populous country in the world, with billions of citizens. Taiwan had one island, Formosa, which was 99% of its territory, a few other tiny islands, and a population of around 20 million.

Facts eventually overcame most, but not all, political fiction. It took years. The PRC had created a “bamboo curtain,” the Chinese counterpart to the “iron curtain” of Eastern Europe. The Mainland was isolated from virtually all outsiders.

President Richard M. Nixon may have been anti-Communist, but he was a realist. Diplomacy has to be done slowly, carefully, and often, mostly in secret. Both Mao and Nixon wanted to figure out ways to break through the PRC’s bamboo curtain. But neither could be seen as being weak.

One of the most interesting ideas that developed was “ping pong diplomacy.”

Prior to 1971, it was virtually impossible for any American to visit the Mainland. Then, on April 6, while visiting Japan for the 31st World Table Tennis Championships, the U.S. Table Tennis team received an invitation to visit China.

This opened the door to more sports and cultural exchanges. Behind the scenes, Nixon sent Henry Kissinger, his National Security Advisor, on a highly secret visit to China to meet with Premier Zhou Enlai, then in charge of Chinese foreign policy. Finally, in 1972, Nixon flew with film crews to China to meet with Zhou and Mao.

By the way, Nixon did say, “This is a great wall.” But the entire quote shows it was pre-planned: “’When one stands there and sees the wall going to the peak of this mountain and realizes that it runs for hundreds of miles – as a matter of fact, thousands of miles – over the mountains and through the valleys of this country [ and ] that it was built over 2,000 years ago, I think that you would have to conclude that this is a great wall and that it had to be built by a great people.”

On the other hand, Star Trek’s Mr. Spock did also say that there is “an old Vulcan proverb,” “Only Nixon could go to China.”

The opening of China had enormous ramifications for every part of the world, including, of course, economic, political and military ramifications for the U.S. and China itself. A small part, but of great importance to the gaming industry, was the decision by the PRC to allow its Mainland residents to visit Macau and the United States.

But, the problem of the “two Chinas” remained.

While the Mainland remained locked behind its bamboo curtain, Taiwan grew into a successful business center. Once the PRC was open to trade, the Mainland became a world power. Taiwan became less dogmatic about being the only real government of China, and quietly established relations with the Mainland. So, Taiwan also continued to grow.

The political solution for the United States was to give the PRC whatever it wanted, but purely as lip-service. If the PRC wants to claim publicly that there is only one China, fine, as long as it does not interfere with the American business and military relationships with Taiwan. The PRC can call itself “China” for the Olympics, etc. But the U.S. and Taiwan will continue their strong relationship, unbroken by the new ties between the U.S. and the PRC.

Taiwan would like to shift to a “two China” policy. That, in fact, is the real world, for a businessman like Trump. But it is definitely not the political reality. The PRC has emphatically rejected all attempts to even begin a discussion of Taiwan being recognized as a separate country.

The problem is that Donald Trump is the most uninformed president the U.S. has ever had. This is not an opinion. It is based on the realities of how human beings communicate: He does not read. “[Trump] said in a series of interviews that he does not need to read extensively because he reaches the right decisions “with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I [already] had, plus the words ‘common sense,’ because I have a lot of common sense and I have a lot of business ability.”

Until recently, it has always been faster to send information verbally, than by writing; that is why lawyers dictate. Modern technology has allowed the blocking and copying of text, so it is possible, today, to convey facts as quickly by writing as by talking.

But the fastest way to receive large amounts of information is still by reading. We hear faster than we speak. But we read enormously faster than we hear. The president has briefing books, which are by no means brief, because that is the only way to get him or her to really know what is going on.

A president who does not read is ignorant. Worse, he is dependent upon what he happens to hear or see on T.V. or the unedited Internet, or what he is told by the few individuals he listens to.

So Donald Trump does not know things about China.

He apparently does not know the convoluted history of how we got to where we are today. As a businessman who has a building project in Taiwan and has his ties made on the Mainland, he thinks there are two Chinas. There are not.

The PRC has never, and will never, agree to two Chinas.

The PRC has made maps of China for more than 60 years: They always include Formosa, as they included Hong Kong and Macau. In fact, when Portugal agreed to turn sovereignty over Macau back to China in 1987, which was not completed until 1999, China refused to sign a treaty. Instead Portugal and China entered into a “Joint Declaration of the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Portuguese Republic on the question of Macao.” China insisted that Macau be formally recognized as having always been Chinese territory, temporarily (for about 450 years) under Portuguese administration.

Trump obviously does not know or understand why diplomacy is conducted quietly, often secretly, and carefully, over long periods of time. It would rarely, if ever, be appropriate for a country’s leader to make statements by tweets, limited to 144 characters.

One of the problems of tweets is there is no subtlety, no way to easily judge what is important and what is just bluster. Trump does not believe in consistency, or even in telling the truth. Those traits can be useful weapons, when used judiciously, in diplomacy. But there have to be ways for both your friends and your enemies to know which statements are policy and which are merely transitory reactions.

Since 1979, there has been no direct communication between a U.S. leader and the leader of Taiwan. This is one of those lip-service protocols the PRC insists on. It has no impact on U.S. – Taiwan business, military, or any other relations. But President-elect Trump made a telephone call with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. Trump and his inner circle had been lobbied by Bob Dole, who received $140,000 from Taiwan for his work.

Trump has problems with criticism. So, when the phone call became public, Trump responded with some not well thought out, or even factually accurate, tweets. First, he said the “the President of Taiwan CALLED ME…” Then, with the criticism continuing, he tweeted, “Did China ask us if it was O.K. to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into their country (the U.S. doesn’t tax them) or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea? I don’t think so!”

Trump compounds his impulsive outbursts by not allowing advisors to screen his tweets. Other presidents knew that every word that comes from a world leader is subjected to great scrutiny. Even a single wrong word could result in war. The State Department, for example, would never have allowed a president to refer to the ruler of Taiwan as the “president;” Trump did not know that as a matter of protocol, she is only referred to as the “leader” of Taiwan. And people with actual knowledge would not have permitted a president to state that “the U.S. doesn’t tax them” [Chinese imports into the U.S.] when the U.S. does, in fact, impose tariffs on Chinese products.

With criticism mounting, Trump made the situation worse. Instead of conducting closed-door diplomacy, as President Obama did to try to sooth China’s anxiety, Trump escalated the controversy by going on Fox News and declaring, “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘One China’ policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”

Trump seems to not know how serious his insults to China are. Worse, he does not even know what it means in China to save face. “Making someone lose face can sometimes insult someone so deeply to create an enemy for life. Indeed, revenge is very much part of the equation—and not just on Chinese soap operas, which include a heavy dose of avenging face-losing situations. I think it’s safe to say that throughout China’s long history, face has started many unnecessary conflicts.”

Anyone who knew anything about China would know that the PRC had to retaliate. To save face, China immediately seized a U.S. Navy submarine drone and announced that it was putting up anti-aircraft guns on the artificial islands it created in the South China Sea, it had promised it would not arm. As a retired Chinese real admiral put it, “If Trump and the American government dare to take actions to challenge the bottom line of China’s policy and core interests, we must drop any expectations about him and give him a bloody nose.”

But Trump continues to insult China, and worse, the Chinese rulers. Diplomats with an understanding of face never single out individuals for criticism, especially for public insults and bullying.

Trump has surrounded himself with business executives like himself; virtually none of his advisors or proposed cabinet members have any experience with government, let alone international diplomacy. But businessmen are primarily concerned with profits and their thinking is limited to months or years. Governments, on the other hand, don’t particularly care about money, except as it relates to issues like power and the welfare of their citizens. And countries think in terms of decades. China, for example, had little problem giving the United Kingdom and Portugal everything they requested for the return of Hong Kong and Macau, respectively, so long as it was clear the two territories, now Special Administrative Regions, would become mere provinces of China after 50 years.

The danger of treating countries like the United States and China as businesses was shown dramatically by the comments made by Rex Tillerson during his confirmation hearing to become Secretary of State. China claims vast parts of the South China Sea are its territory, as do Vietnam and other countries. China is now building artificial islands out of half-submerged reefs in the contested areas. When asked about those islands, he declared before a worldwide audience, “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops. And second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”

This might make sense and even work if this were only two companies competing over business. Tillerson, as chief executive of Exxon Mobil (he has never worked anywhere else), signed an agreement with Vietnam in 2009 to drill for oil and gas in the contested areas. The South China Sea is estimated to contain 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

But China saw Tillerson’s comments as a threat that the U.S. would use military force to block it from having access to islands it considers its territory. “‘If Tillerson tries to fulfill that promise, there will be a war with China,’” said Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, in an interview with the Australian Financial Review. ‘Some would see this as a statement of strength and assertiveness, I would see it as one of ignorance and irresponsibility.’”

So far, China has mostly dismissed Trump as being ignorant, childish and foolish. But its patience is wearing thin, even before Trump takes office.

“China expresses serious concern on this subject,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told reporters. “If the [one-China policy] is compromised or interfered with, any sound and steady development in China-U.S. relations and cooperation in various fields is out of the question.”

The Global Times, a Chinese state-run newspaper, went further, accusing Trump of being “very childish and impulsive.”

It said Trump’s comments wouldn’t be without consequences.

“China needs to prepare enough ammunition for a roller-coaster ride of the China-U.S. relations with Trump,” it said in an editorial. “There are many other people in the world that also need to buckle up the seat belts.”

The newspaper said that “China needs to start a resolute battle with” Trump, adding that “China and other powers in the world are not going to be bullied.”

How will China respond? The PRC has already “warned that it will go to war to prevent a formal separation” between Taiwan and the Mainland.”

Short of a shooting war, China is sure to use its enormous economic power.

In 2004, the PRC changed its rules to allow Chinese tourists to travel on individual visas. Freed from having to travel in a group, with a restrictive tour leader, Chinese Mainlanders flowed across its borders, by the hundreds of millions.

Chinese tourism has been great for places like Macau and Las Vegas. But it gives the PRC a powerful weapon.

I have taught a post-grad class in Gaming Law at the University of Macau for nine of the last ten years, starting in 2007. A few years ago, the PRC, without warning, put restrictions on travel from the Mainland to Macau: residents of the provinces nearest Macau could no longer take daily visits; they were only able to enter Macau once every three months. The impact was immediate. One of my students was in charge of the frequent visitor’s program for an American-owned casino. When visa restrictions were imposed from Beijing, she lost her job, because there were no more frequent visitors.

And it’s not just Macau. Chinese are now the top tourists in the world. Chinese tourists spent $215 billion abroad in 2015, “way more than anyone else.”

Although only a relatively small percentage of casino patrons in Nevada play baccarat, that favorite game of Chinese high-rollers has passed blackjack as the most profitable table game on the Las Vegas Strip. The numbers are startling: Nevada casinos have a total of 2,704 blackjack tables and only 302 baccarat tables. In 2013, Nevada casinos won a total of $1,093,761,000 from blackjack, and $1,597,443,000 from baccarat. So, despite having only one-ninth as many tables, baccarat produced fifty percent more gaming revenue than blackjack – half a billion dollars more. A blackjack table wins $404,497 on average in a year; a baccarat table $5,289,546 – 13 times as much. And the yield from baccarat was increasing, until the PRC’s recent anti-corruption campaign. In December 2013, Nevada casinos won three times as much from baccarat as from blackjack: $242,993,000 from only 328 baccarat tables, an increase of 28% from the year before, versus only $82,132,000 from 2,695 blackjack tables, a decrease of 13%.

Nevada-licensed casinos actively try to induce Mainland VIPs to try their luck in Las Vegas rather than in Macau, because Nevada’s tax rate on casinos’ winnings is so much lower. Casinos have to pay Macau close to 39% in taxes and fees, and less than 7% to Nevada. If the high-roller is a client of a junket operator, as is almost always the case with Macau VIPs, the casino gets to keep even less. PRC high-rollers prefer gambling in Nevada because it is even more difficult for the Mainland government to keep track of financial transactions. The exodus to Las Vegas grew after Macau officials charged some local lenders with money laundering.

The PRC has helped fuel the boom in Chinese gamblers to Las Vegas. The government’s active promotion of private capitalism and state construction projects has created a growing middle class. The PRC’s easing of travel restrictions has allowed more and more non-wealthy Chinese to travel. The size of China’s population and the Chinese love for gambling led to this startling headline in the China Daily: “7,000-strong tour group breaks record in US trip.” The eight-day trip required more than 70 flights from the Mainland, and the group was expected to fill more than 30 hotels. Destinations included southern California and, of course, Las Vegas.

So, today it is not only Macau, but also Las Vegas, that would suffer greatly if the PRC decided, once again, to make it difficult for tourists to leave the Mainland, or to travel to the U.S., or even just to Nevada.

Restrictions on tourism involving gaming is a natural target for China to retaliate against Trump. Everyone here and in Asia still associates the Trump name with casinos. He owns a large hotel in Las Vegas. And two of his top supporters, Steve Wynn and Sheldon Adelson, would be severely hurt if Chinese Mainlanders could not gamble in Macau and Las Vegas.

I personally think if Trump continues to cause Chinese officials to lose face, the first retaliation will probably be something bigger and more dramatic against U.S. economic interests. Boeing is America’s largest exporter. One-quarter of its sales are to China. 150,000 Americans would instantly lose their jobs if China canceled its orders for Boeing’s jets. And Boeing has a non-American competitor which can fill those orders, Airbus.

The danger to legal gaming is that Trump never backs down. He openly and consistently revels in revenge.

If somebody hits you, you’ve got to hit ’em back five times harder than they ever thought possible. . . It’s not so much for the person, which does make you feel good, to be honest with you, I’ve done it many times. But other people watch and you know they say, “Well, let’s leave Trump alone,” . . . I say it, and it’s so important. You have to, you have to hit back. You have to hit back.

So now we have a Chinese culture that requires saving face, and an insecure, thin-skinned president who believes escalating a conflict is a sign of strength.

For decades, Trump has been an advocate of revenge. And now his revenge fantasies are running wild on a grand stage. . . Iranian sailors make rude gestures at US vessels? He will shoot them “out of the water.” His favorite form of revenge is escalation—upping the ante, screwing ’em more than they screwed you.

After China destroys the American aircraft industry, and Trump retaliates, the PRC will then probably put restrictions on iPhones and other U.S.-made small electronic devices. The legal gaming industry is probably third in line. If we’re not in a shooting war by that time, and if, and when, Trump insults them again, China’s rulers will simply change its visa rules to eliminate travel to the U.S.

Before Trump, China was expected to become the third largest source of foreign tourists to the U.S., after Canada and Mexico. Of course, Trump has already scared off tourists from Mexico. But even without a trade war, China can devastate the economy of Las Vegas.

And that’s even without the inevitable stock market crash and recession.

What Should Daily Fantasy Sports Do Now?

The two big Daily Fantasy Sports (“DFS”) operators, FanDuel and DraftKings, and their backers are, in the immortal words of former President George H.W. Bush, in “deep-doodoo.” But lawyers with legal shovels can probably dig them out.

As recently as last year, the DFS industry’s problems were relatively insignificant. As in the early days of Internet poker, operators were making so much money that they could afford to brush off the few scattered questions about the games’ legality.

The explosion of interest in DFS, fed in part by unprecedented massive television advertising campaigns, was bound to raise challenges. DraftKings and FanDuel are more than just important advertisers for ESPN. “In fact, some 59% of the media advertising revenue growth in the last quarter ($134 million) came from fantasy sites.” But a scandal at the end of September 2015 brought operators’ attention they did not want, including threats from government officials that the DFS operators would be arrested unless they stopped taking players from Nevada and New York.

The scandal could have been easily avoided. A manager of DraftKings accidentally released confidential information about which real-world athletes DFS players were selecting, and then, perhaps coincidentally, the same manager won $350,000 playing fantasy football at rival FanDuel. This, of course, looked like the DraftKings employee used inside information to give himself an advantage in choosing which players to put on his FanDuel fantasy team.

Online fantasy sports, like all new games, were created and staffed by people who like to play those same games. Anyone with experience with legal gaming, especially Internet gambling, and most especially a lawyer, would have warned the operators to bar their employees from participating in high-stakes DFS games.

It appears that both FanDuel and DraftKings did prohibit their staff members from participating in their own real-money games. But since there are only two large operators, employees of each company should not have been allowed to play on the other company’s site. At the very least, individuals with inside information should have had contracts warning them that they would have been fired if they were found to have participated in any high-stakes real-money DFS game.

I would have also recommended inclusion of a liquidated damages clause, requiring any employee who won more than, say, $1,000 playing DFS in violation of his employment contract to forfeit all the money he won to his employer. Liquidated damages are included in contracts when the parties know it would be difficult to measure or prove the actual damages that would be caused by a breach. Given the potential harm to the operators’ reputations by an insider winning a large amount, it is probable that the liquidated damages clause would have been upheld. It would have at least warned employees that playing DFS for big money was not worth the risk.

The dangers were not limited to DFS operators. Investors, media companies and real-world sports teams can also be dragged into the legal morass.

The worst possible direct penalties come from the criminal laws, especially the state and federal statutes passed to fight organized crime. If DFS is indeed illegal, then companies like ESPN could be criminally liable merely for running the operators’ commercials.

Helping someone else to commit a crime, usually called aiding and abetting, makes the accomplice guilty of that crime. So, if DFS operators are violating the federal Wire Act, which makes it a crime to send information useful in the placing of bets on sports events across state lines, then companies running DFS ads would also be guilty of that crime.

Making an agreement and running advertisements for an illegal activity would constitute the separate crime of conspiracy. And if the crime is illegal gambling, there are special statutes, like the federal Illegal Gambling Businesses Act, that make it a felony, if certain other requirements are met, to participate in the business.

It is unlikely that federal prosecutors will go after media companies, due to First Amendment concerns. Investors and profession sports teams have less protection, but also would not be attractive targets, at least for U.S. attorneys. State attorneys general and district attorneys are slightly more likely to like the publicity that indicting a big money investor or well-known team might bring; but only if the prosecutors thought they would win.

A greater concern for DFS partners are the inevitable civil suits. Class actions have already been filed. One of the most extensive was filed in Florida in late November by two DFS patrons. The suit named approximately 50 individuals and organizations as defendants. These include four pro sports leagues, the MBA, MLB, NHL, MLS; large media companies, including NBC Sports Comcast and Fox Sports Interactive Media; Visa, MasterCard, and American Express; J.P. Morgan and other big banks; and, PayPal and other payment processors. Conspicuous by its absence is the National Football League. The NFL has never openly endorsed DFS. But three owners of professional sports teams, including the owner of the New England Patriots, who invested in DFS operators, are named as defendants.

It is probably not surprising that so many large and wealthy institutions did not do more to protect themselves. Gaming, including both gambling and non-money games, are not treated seriously by most people. Although companies will have their lawyers look over the contracts, they, and their lawyers, will enter into multi-million-dollar deals without having even asking whether the underlying business is legal. It is not even clear whether the media, credit card companies and other partners put in protections, such as requiring the DFS operators to indemnify them against legal actions.

This does not mean that the DFS operators and their partners are going to lose their legal fights. In fact, the actual legal situation is not nearly as bad as a quick reading of headlines would indicate.

Take, for example, the two most important state actions that have been thrown up against DFS operators. In Nevada, the Chair of the Nevada Gaming Control Board issued a letter stating that DFS is gambling and thus cannot operate without a state gaming license. In New York, the Attorney General has also declared DFS illegal and has sent a cease and desist letter, which has now been followed by civil suits.

Nevada is the most important state for legal gambling. But in terms of paying patrons, it simply is not a very big market for DFS. Even before the current controversy, casino companies like MGM looked at DFS and concluded that it just wasn’t worth their getting into the game.

More importantly, it is far from clear that DFS is gambling under Nevada state law. On October 15, 2015, A.G. Burnett, Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, issued a formal Notice to “All Licensees and Interested Parties,” on the “Legality of Offering Daily Fantasy Sports in Nevada.” Chairman Burnett asked the Board’s staff and the Nevada Attorney General’s Gaming Division to evaluate DFS. Burnett’s Notice reads:

Based on these analyses, I, along with Board staff, have concluded that DFS constitutes gambling under Nevada law. More specifically, DFS meets the definition of a game or gambling game pursuant to Chapter 463 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Moreover, because DFS involves wagering on the collective performance of individuals participating in sporting events, under current law, regulation and approvals, in order to lawfully expose DFS for play within the State of Nevada, a person must possess a license to operate a sports pool issued by the Nevada Gaming Commission. Further, a licensed operator who offers DFS must comply with all laws and regulations that apply to licensed sports pools.

State-licensed sports books are allowed to take bets on sports events and run sports pools. But the Notice makes it clear that the DFS would have to be run by those state-licensed bookies, and that they would have to be careful about associating with outside companies that might be violating other states’ anti-gambling laws.

The Notice raises interesting procedural issues. Nevada regulators have no direct power over DFS operators like FanDuel and DraftKing that are not licensed by the state. Gambling regulators can declare non-licensed individuals and companies as being unsuitable. And they can decide what is allowed in state licensed gaming facilities. But it is doubtful whether Nevada gaming regulators have the power to declare activities as being gambling if they are not conducted on the grounds of a casino or similar facility. Even the power to declare a company as being unsuitable is not of much legal value if that company is not associated in any way with a Nevada licensee.

Putting it more bluntly, it is not up to the Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board to decide whether an activity like DFS is or is not gambling if that activity has nothing to do with any of the state’s licensees. Regulators of legal gambling are not public prosecutors. The interpretation and enforcement of the state’s anti-gambling laws for activities conducted over the Internet directly into people’s homes is a matter reserved for law enforcement, the state’s district attorneys, and Attorney General, not gaming regulators.

There are also due process concerns. Chairman Burnett has declared DFS operators as violating Nevada’s anti-gambling laws. But the DFS operators were not given their day in court. In fact, they were not even given the chance to have a hearing on the facts and laws. And, because they are not subject to licensing, they do not have an opportunity to contest the Chairman’s conclusion through the normal regulatory process. A criminal prosecution allows a defendant to challenge the charges. In this case, the only way DFS operators can challenge this Notice is to file suit for a declaratory judgment and perhaps an injunction to get their day in court.

And the DFS operators might win. If DFS is predominantly a game of skill, it would not be gambling or a sports pool under Nevada law.

It is up to each state to decide whether an activity has enough skill to be considered as a contest of skill rather than gambling. Courts have laid down many different tests for determining whether a game is predominantly a game of skill. In brief, they will look for the following:

1) A skillful player will win more than an unskillful one.
2) Skill can be learned from experience, from real or mock play.
3) Skill games require a knowledge of mathematics.
4) Skill games require psychological skill.
5) Player participation changes the result.
6) Skill can be learned from reading.
7) The opinion of the community.

In Las Vegas Hacienda v. Gibson theNevada Supreme Court declared, in dicta, that it is up to the trial court to decide whether an activity is predominantly skill or chance. The facts of the case offers strong support for DFS operators, because it involved a reward of $5,000 for a 50 cent entry fee for a hole-in-one on a golf course. The trial court found that the shooting of a hole-in-one was a feat of skill. Even though it was not necessary for its decision, the Nevada Supreme Court went out of its way to declare:

The test of the character of a game is not whether it contains an element of chance or an element of skill, but which is the dominating element. People ex rel. Ellison v. Lavin, 179 N.Y. 164, 71 N.E. 753, 66 L.R.A. 601. It was within the province of the trial court to determine this question. Brown v. Board of Police Commissioners, 58 Cal. App. 2d 473, 136 P.2d 617.

If a hole-in-one is predominantly skill, then surely DFS is also not gambling.

DFS operators face a different situation in New York. As the third most populous state, New York cannot be ignored. Plus, attorneys generally talk to each other informally all the time. The official declaration that DFS is gambling would quickly spread to other states.

The DFS operators had no choice but to file suit. If they had continued to take real-money players from New York without court permission they risked being arrested. FanDuel’s headquarters is in New York City. But even DraftKing, with corporate offices in Boston, would easily be extradited.

Being charged with a crime is always bad. But there are several legal considerations that would make the situation even worse for these DFS operators. Under both state and federal case law, once a state criminal action has been filed, the defendant cannot then ask a civil court to hear the case. State civil courts simply will not hear any claim that the criminal statute is unconstitutional or that the prosecutors are misinterpreting state law: These and any similar complaint can be raised as a defense in the pending criminal action. Federal courts do have the power to intervene, but the U.S. Supreme Court has told lower federal courts to abstain; that it would undermine “Our Federalism” to prevent a state criminal trial from going forward, even if federal constitutional issues are at stake.

So, the DFS operators had to file for a temporary restraining order to prevent being arrested while they prepared for a preliminary injunction hearing with expert testimony. In an interesting development, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman agreed to let them keep taking players from his state, at least until the court could conduct a more thorough hearing. He also filed his own complaints to shut them down, using the civil rather than criminal justice system.

The last is most significant: It means that the courts should allow the DFS operators to keep taking New York patrons until a full trial can be held.

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Courts are required to balance the hardships of the plaintiff and defendant and also take into account the public interest. In this case, if the A.G. wins, two thriving businesses would be shut down, throwing dozens if not hundreds of people out of work, even if the DFS operators eventually won at trial.

And what would be the hardship to the state of New York if the DFS operators were allowed to continue? DraftKings was founded in January 2011; FanDuel is even older, started in 2009. Attorney General Schneiderman is going to have a tough time convincing a judge that the state will suffer some irreparable harm if the companies were allowed to continue in business until a full trial can be held. What’s the emergency? If daily fantasy sports is such a clear and present danger why did the state let it continue unmolested for half a decade? If DraftKings and FanDuel were a public nuisance they could have been closed down with injunctions years ago. And if they were so clearly breaking the law, they could have been arrested.

It is always dangerous to make predictions in writing. By the time you read this, the first hearing in New York will have already occurred. But I will go on record as predicting that the court will not close down either DraftKings or FanDuel with a preliminary injunction.

It is much more difficult to predict which side will win a full trial for a permanent injunction. But I have another prediction: If the DFS operators are allowed to stay open in 2015 that trial will never take place. DraftKings, FanDuel and their rich and powerful media allies will use their enormous political influence to get the New York Legislature to pass a law making most of their operations legal.

They may have to give up daily games and be limited to real athletic events that take place on at least two days. And they will certainly be required to be regulated.

But there is too much money at stake to see daily fantasy sports disappear any time soon.

China’s Gambling Problem

Macau is by far the largest gaming jurisdiction in the world. This year, the casinos in this Special Administrative Region of China are projected to win more than all of the privately-owned casinos in the United States – about $40 billion. And Macau is not only smaller than the U.S., or Rhode Island; even with its reclaimed land, it would fit inside the District of Columbia six times over, with room to spare.

Imagine what business it could do if it were completely legal.

Not that the casinos are violating any Macanese laws. But restrictions in its main feeder market, Mainland China, mean that inevitably some laws are being broken by individuals and companies who have made this small gaming enclave such a success.

You can start with the patrons. It is against the law for anyone from the Mainland to take out more than 20,000 yuan renminbi, or about US$3,150, in cash. That’s less than $25,000 in Hong Kong dollars: A typical bet in the high-roller rooms in Macau casinos.

So, how are Mainland players getting their cash across the border? The old fashioned way – smuggling.

Guards at most border crossings now just wave you through, if they are even there at all. Spot checks at Macau’s borders with Zhuhai, the connecting city on the Mainland, and at the two ferry terminals and the Macau Airport are extremely rare.

How rare? Players are coming to Macau to gamble. They know they have a better chance of winning a life-changing jackpot on a slot machine than of losing a life-changing conviction for violating currency laws.

Of course, wealthier visitors are also getting their money out in other ways. But Mainland Chinese like cash, and they don’t trust banks. They even buy houses with cash.

Of the 28 million visitors to Macau each year, more than half come from the Mainland. Not coincidentally, more than half also stay for less than one day. Millions arrive carrying shopping bags, and many of those bags have wads of yuans hidden at their bottoms. And not all the shoppers who cross the borders with Zhuhai each year are carrying the cash only for themselves.

And smuggling cash into Macau by patrons is probably the least serious of the law-breaking that is going on.

Because gambling debts are not legally enforceable on the Mainland, casinos are extremely reluctant to directly lend money to players. So a complex system of junket operators has arisen.

Much of what the junket operators do is completely legal. They make arrangements for travel and are allowed to share directly in both the theoretical and actual losses of the high-rollers they bring to Macau’s casinos. Although “promoting gambling” is a crime on the Mainland, China does not care if junket operators loan money for gambling, so long as only paperwork, not currency, crosses the border.

But how do the junket operators get their profits out of China? Some invest in other legitimate businesses on the Mainland, which are allowed to wire funds to Hong Kong and elsewhere. But some turn to those millions of shopping bags, or other, more nefarious, means.

Pawn shops have always been associated with casinos. There does not appear to be any law against a player intentionally taking expensive personal merchandise out of the Mainland and selling it in Macau for cash for gambling.

But there are a growing number of high-end jewelry and watch stores popping up in Macau, even as booths right on the floors of the casinos. These stores are not buying, but selling. At least, that’s what they pretend to be doing. What they are actually doing is transferring funds out of Mainland China.

The most common scam is to create a credit card sale of a very expensive item, like a watch. But no actual watch is involved. The seller gets a small percentage off the top, while the bulk of the money goes to the money-lender. Often the credit card sale is not even recorded. It is held, like a marker, for 24 hours so that it can be cancelled if the player wins.

This is done openly and blatantly. During my most recent trip to Macau I watched players sign papers and receive bundles of cash from jewelry stores located directly on the casino floor.

The most recent development has been the creation of licensed micro-finance companies on the Mainland. There are now more than 4,000 licensees, lending at least 180 billion yuan, or more than US$30 billion, each year. Loans are supposed to go to small businesses. But junket operators and their agents are getting licensed and taking the position that it is none of the government’s business what the loans are for. They even believe, or at least state publicly, that being a licensed micro-lender somehow makes their business of loaning money for gambling legal.

There is no way China can check every loan. Yuan-denominated loans now total 7.47 trillion yuan, or US$1.18 trillion.

Chinese law, of course, would not allow a lender to turn a non-enforceable gambling debt into one that the courts would enforce simply because the lender has a micro-finance license. There is also the possibility of criminal charges being raised for promotion of gambling. Of course, all this would require that the player declare publicly that he and everyone else involved knew that the money was being lent for him to gamble in Macau.

How would an agent of a lender make sure the player does not talk? For that matter, how have agents been collecting those hundreds of billions of yuans over the years, when gambling debts were, and are, not legally enforceable?

That is the greatest risk of China’s outdated laws against gambling. Because gambling debts cannot be collected through the legal system, they are sometimes collected through illegal means. In a 2008 study by Macao Polytechnic of 99 high-rolling Mainlanders who made the Chinese newspapers for excessive gambling, seven died “extra-judicially,” meaning they committed suicide or were murdered.

Violence is not limited to organized crime. Of the 99, 15 were sentenced to death. This was usually for embezzlement. But people have been executed in China for the crime of gambling. The last one was apparently in 2004; today, gambling on the Mainland can still result in years in prison.

China has a problem, because it still thinks of gambling as a sin. This was the view of most of the world, up until a couple of hundred years ago. Today, in the common law countries, like England, the U.S. and Singapore, and the civil law countries, like France, Spain and Macau, gambling is seen as a vice.

The difference can be seen in the written records. Sin is not discussed in polite society. The first rule book on card games could only be written, by Edmund Hoyle, and published, in 1742, when gambling became viewed as something distasteful but not against God’s laws.

Sinful acts are almost always illegal, and in the rare cases where they are operated commercially, they cannot be advertised and their contracts are unenforceable. Imagine a patron asking a judge to order specific performance in one of Nevada’s legal brothels.

But vice is often legal, if strictly controlled. Maybe the government will want to put it in the middle of a desert, or isolated on a mountaintop, or on a riverboat surrounded by holy water. Tobacco, alcohol and gambling can even advertise, in limited ways. And as gaming becomes more accepted in society, gambling debts are becoming enforceable in more jurisdictions.

In 1999, Portugal gave Macau back to the People’s Republic of China. The Mainland also has two of the largest lotteries in the world. If gambling is a sin, then China is one of the world’s biggest sinners.

If the 21st century belongs to China, its attitudes toward gambling should at least be as modern as the 18th century.

$1.2 Million Settles Lawsuit in Teen’s Death Insurance company scrapped wrecked car.

The family of Veronica Cottrell, the McHenry High School student killed in 1997 when the Chevrolet Corvette she was riding in hit a tree, has settled its wrongful-death lawsuit for $1.2 million.

    The suit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court against State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company; James Helfers, an adjuster for State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company; James Helfers, and adjuster for State Farm; and Kevin Smurlo, who was in the car at the time of the crash.  General Motors Corp. was dismissed from the suit.  The out-of-court settlement was reached last Wednesday.

    It accused Smurlo of negligent driving and State Farm of destroying the Corvette, in violation of a court order, while the case was pending.

    “Veronica brought a great deal of joy to the Cottrell family,” said Timothy Cavanagh, the attorney representing the family.  “The family is relieved that the suit was settled for the full amount of the insurance coverage available and not a penny less.”

    Cottrell, a pompon squad member and honor student at McHenry High School’s West Campus, was killed on Aug. 13, 1997, when the Chevrolet Corvette she was riding in left the road, hit a tree and rolled over on Sands Road, east of Crystal lake.

    Smurlo, a senior at McHenry’s East Campus at the time, was injured in the accident and suffered some brain damage.  The car was owned by Jack Fisher III; whose son, Jack Fisher IV, lent the vehicle to Smurlo and Cottrell the night of the accident.  The suit was originally filed in McHenry County Circuit Court in October 1997, and named Edward Smurlo, Kevin’s father, and the elder Fisher as defendants.  However, Cavanagh refiled the suit in June in Cook County naming State Farm, the insurer of the car, as a defendant for destroying the Corvette in violation of a McHenry County court order that said the car must be preserved while the lawsuit was pending.

    “It was pretty clear Kevin was negligent.  He was the driver,” Cavanagh said.  “But State Farm destroyed critical evidence that they needed to be held responsible for.  They had not been a defendant.  But when they destroyed evidence, they became a party.”

   Cavanagh, who said adjuster Helfers ordered the car to be destroyed, said he found out about it in April, but still does not know why it was done.  State Farm spokesman Rob Cornwell said he could not discuss specifics of the out-of-court settlement, but said: “this was a very unfortunate accident resulting in the death of a person.  It’s important for us to state that we value the life that was lost.  This isn’t just another claim for us.”

   Cavanagh’s original complaint stated that Smurlo negligently drove the Corvette, whether by speeding, operating the car without keeping a proper lookout, failing to operate the vehicle in a single lane of traffic or failing to reduce his speed to avoid losing control of the car.

   The Fishers declined comment on the settlement and the Smurlos could not be reached for comment.  Smurlo’s parents’ policy with Farmers Insurance will pay $100,000 of the settlement, Lawyers of Distinction said.


A Cook County judge entered a $9.7 million verdict on Monday in favor of a boy born mentally retarded allegedly because his mother’s HMO physician failed to manage her obstetrics care properly.

    A Circuit court jury on Friday found Dr. Alphonsa Antony negligent in her role as Denise Love’s primary care physician and awarded damages of $9,967,693 for 6-year-old Anthony Thomas.  Circuit Judge Thomas P. Quinn presided over the eight-day trial.

    Antony was acting as Love’s HMO “gatekeeper,” the physician responsible for coordinating and approving all specialist care, such as obstetrics, and for managing costs, according to the plaintiff’s’ attorney, Kurt D. Lloyd. The arrangement was part of a Chicago HMO contract, and all treatment was done at EHS Christ Hospital and Medical Center in Oak Lawn, he said.

    Love went to Antony for a pregnancy diagnosis on Aug. 26, 1988, Lloyd said.  The test came back positive, and Antony referred the mother to an obstetrician, who was supposed to monitor the woman’s pregnancy and report back to the primary care physician, he said.

    An ultrasound test approved through Antony’s office determined that the mother’s due date was Nov. 23, 1988, Lloyd said.  But Antony never received a copy of the report; only the obstetrician did, he said.

    The obstetrician later referred the mother back to Antony for blood-sugar tests on Sept. 29, Oct. 11, Nov. 14 and 25, Lloyd said.  Each report – all of which contained information that the woman had uncontrolled gestational diabetes – was initialed by Antony, then mailed to the obstetrician, he said.

    The ultrasound also contained indications that the pregnant woman had diabetes, Lloyd said.

    As a result of the untreated disease, the boy was delivered on Nov. 28, 1988, by emergency caesarean section and now suffers from moderate to severe mental retardation.

    Lloyd said he had argued at trial that Antony should have intervened by calling the obstetrician and developing a plan to treat the mother’s diabetes and deliver the baby by the due date.

    “This is a needless thing,” Lloyd said of the boy’s condition.  “A simple telephone call by the HMO doctor would have saved the child from injury, and now he will required life-long care.”

    But Antony’s attorney, William V. Johnson, said his client was not responsible for the pregnant woman’s treatment and was found responsible for the boy’s condition only “because she got paperwork as a result of being a part of an HMO.”

    Johnson said his client admits that treatment was lacking, but maintains that it was not because of negligence.  She was only responsible for administering blood tests and handling costs, Johnson said she claims.  Primary care responsibilities had been transferred to the obstetrician, Dr. Varsha Upadhyaya, who settled before the trial began last week for his insurance policy limit of $1 million.  That amount will be set off against the jury’s award, Lloyd said.

    “In any event it was a situation where the jury expected more of a doctor than the medical community expects of a doctor,” Johnson said about Antony.  “In other words, my doctor wasn’t treating the patient.”

    Upadhyaya could not be reached for comment and there are still COVID marketing campaigns out there.

    The case is American National Bank, etc., v. Alphonsa Antony, M.D., et al., No. 90 L 13655.

Experts dispute impairment stats in workers’ comp claims

While some websites and anti-drug organizations have recently reported that 38 percent to 50 percent of all workplace accidents resulting in workers’ compensation claims involve drugs or alcohol, most experts, like the ones at https://saputo.law/ are not convinced.

In fact, many experts, whether in North Carolina or elsewhere, are now calling the statistics “bogus” and unattributable to any verified study. The statistic, quoted by several large anti-drug organizations, is often attributed to workplace studies performed in 1992, but neither the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration claim to have gathered this data.

One of the reasons that many experts doubt these statistics is the way in which workers’ compensations are handled in many states. For example, most states will deny workers’ compensation claims if the employee filing the claim is found to have been under the influence of drugs and alcohol during the accident. It would be highly unlikely that any claim would be granted, or payment made, in claims where impairment was obvious.

Furthermore, some experts are concerned that the statistics are an attempt to place the blame for a workplace injury on the employee. If that’s happening, companies may be foregoing any investigation into whether an unsafe work condition exists that could cause further injuries.

Some experts just point to the 38-percent to 50-percent figures and say their incredulous on their face. One says it basically implies that half of the U.S. workforce is high most of the time at work.

Most states that allow insurance companies to deny workers compensation law claims due to drug or alcohol use require that the intoxication of the employee be the only reason for the accident. But the experts tend to agree that in many instances, other unsafe working condition likely will be found, such as defective machinery or improper safety preparations. For assistance, contact Davidovich lawyer Denver, CO workers compensation law firm.

Report Finds Dangerous Chemical Prevalent in Tap Water

Although many people prefer bottled water to tap water in the United States, the fact remains that many of us get our water primarily from the tap. We drink it. We cook with it. We wash with it. So when a report finds that a dangerous chemical is compromising the safety of our tap water, it should be taken seriously.

Last week, Hirzel Law homeowner association lawyers helped formulate the results of a study conducted in 35 major American cities. Researchers were looking for a chemical called hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6. The group found that millions of Americans could be suffering from toxic chemical exposure. Read More

Forklift Safety Instruction and Presentation Program Synopsis

The Forklift Safety Instruction and Presentation Program is, without a doubt, the most complete and comprehensive training of its kind on the market. It was designed for safety managers, supervisors, or other designated personnel with a need to initiate an independent training program in their organizations or departments. The training is extremely thorough, yet, concise enough to only require two days to complete and avoid the need for a personal injury lawyer like https://www.marsalisilaw.com/. The design goals of this curriculum were three-fold:

  • To provide training thorough enough to allow the participant to implement a full-scale safety training program of his or her own immediately following the course
  • To provide the participant with 100% of the customizable materials and aides to implement his or her program, with no further necessity for resource-gathering
  • To be cost-effective to the participant’s company or organization

Read More

Texting and Driving Causes Death of Infant

Recently we at https://bakerlegalteam.com/ have been talking a lot about the dangerous and even fatal repercussions of driving and texting. We have spoken about a teenager who was distracted by his phone and killed a pedestrian on a Saturday night. Last time, we spoke about how one study conducted by Car and Driver magazine showed that texting and driving is more dangerous than drinking and driving. The study showed that the drivers’ reaction times were slower while texting and driving than the drivers’ reaction times were while impaired. Obviously, the combination is not safe. Read More