Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Judge David Langham
The Florida First District Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal in the cause of Tommy D. Lay II. v. KBR WC Claims,
1D19-4171(LT 13-014638). There is no extensive written opinion that would come to the attention of those who watch the
Most Recent Written Decisions. Though, as an aside, everyone involved in Florida workers compensation claims (e.g. risk managers, attorneys, adjusters) would be well advised to read those decisions.
There is a tool there, and readers can sign up for notifications when new written decisions are released.
However, the Written Decisions are not the only decisions that the Court makes. Practically, the procedural decisions in each case far outnumber the rendered decisions that ultimately conclude an appellate review. The December 7, 2020 dismissal in Lay certainly is both such a procedural decision and an ultimate conclusion. And, it is but one of the procedural orders entered by the Court in this proceeding.
[co-author: Megan McKnelly ]
On December 3, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) released data regarding the usage and success rates of its Motion to Amend (“MTA”) Pilot Program (“Pilot”). All PTAB cases instituted on or after March 15, 2019, are eligible for the Pilot, which provides two new options for MTA filers. The options include: (1) requesting preliminary guidance from the PTAB on a MTA and/or (2) filing a revised MTA after preliminary guidance or the petitioner’s opposition to the original MTA.
The PTAB reported that between June 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020, it received 102 Pilot-eligible MTAs. Of those filed, 76% of MTAs opted to receive preliminary guidance and 79% opted to file revised MTAs under the Pilot. These opt-in rates differ from the previous rates reported by the PTAB for MTAs filed between June 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020, where 83% of MTAs opted to receive preliminary guidance and 58% opted to file revised MTAs.