Skip to content
An empty conference room.

Recently, Nate Lindsey achieved a favorable result for a Rasmussen Dickey Moore client in a construction contract dispute that went to virtual arbitration. He discussed his experience with attorney Matt Jensen who also recently completed virtual alternative dispute resolution. Their experiences are captured here in these five quick questions for this month’s Cross-Examination. 

What was the format for your virtual hearing?

Nate: I appeared for an arbitration involving a construction contract dispute via Zoom. It involved three witnesses, a fair amount of documents, and lasted around four hours. This followed a very brief Zoom mediation where we didn’t make much progress coming to an agreement on the claim.

Matt: I had a mediation last week involving husband and wife plaintiffs and three defendants. Generally, the case involves a defectively designed home. We had taken the plaintiffs’ depositions already and the parties were all pretty well aware of the documents both sides thought were important.  We had initially planned on all of the parties gathering together by Zoom for the first round of talks. However, at the last minute, the mediator decided he only wanted to meet with the plaintiffs via Zoom in the initial meeting. Then he held a phone conference with all of the defendants before breaking off and calling each of us individually in successive rounds. 

Did you do anything different approaching the hearing since you knew it was going to be virtual? 

Nate: After the initial mediation, which was also through Zoom, I decided to find a little box to place my laptop on so I wasn’t looking down at the screen or camera. This felt a little more natural than the first call because I was eye level with screen and better centered. I tried to keep my notes and second screen with exhibits angled so that I was always facing my computer camera and never looking or turning away.

Matt: While I was pretty sure the mediator had already been provided with any important documents, I had scanned copies of everything I felt might be needed in a folder on my desktop just in case we needed to find something quickly. I also probably spent a little more time discussing the case with the carrier before mediation since there would nobody would be with me live. 

What went well during the hearing and what do you wish would have gone better? 

Nate: The only thing that didn’t go well was the arbitrator’s Zoom account started to boot us off during the final hour of the proceeding. I don’t think anyone knew why. Luckily, there was a backup account link ready to be used.  Having a “Plan B” for handling a virtual conference is highly recommended. 

Matt: The mediator decided that since we had already taken the depositions of the plaintiffs, there was no need to have the defendants present on Zoom. So, there were no opening statements and, while I am sure the mediator did a fine job of presenting our arguments, there was no opportunity for me to make those arguments directly to the plaintiffs. For reasons I will explain below, I think having the defendants in the initial Zoom meeting would have been beneficial. As for what went well, I did the mediation from my office where I had access not only to my computer but to my cell phone and a land line. This worked out well because when the mediator would call me on my cell phone, I could (usually) ring up the carrier on my land line so he could listen in. 

Do you think the virtual hearing was as effective as doing it in person? 

Nate: Generally, I think the format was fine for an arbitration where both parties knew we weren’t negotiating and we were presenting the case on the merits to the arbiter. I think had we have mediated in person, we would have been more likely to reach an agreement before the arbitration.   

Matt: For the right type of case, the Zoom mediation could work out pretty well. However, my case was further complicated by the unrealistic expectations of the plaintiffs in terms of their damages and the failure of their attorney to manage those expectations. So, my mediation was kind of doomed from the start. We did not settle and made very little progress towards settlement. I believe there is a chance we could have made greater headway if we could have met with the plaintiffs in person to explain why the law did not entitle them to the damages they were seeking. 

What’s your best piece of advice for an attorney approaching their first virtual hearing? 

Nate: The organization of lots of documents and preparing to present them on the screen is crucial. I handled it alright by myself, but I think I could have done even better had I used an administrative assistant or paralegal to help me with the share screen function and quickly locating documents. 

Matt: I agree with Nate on documents, but I think everything has to be a little more organized on the whole. There was at least one time when the mediator called me and I could not get the carrier on the phone.  So, having spent a lot of time with him discussing the issues in advance of the mediation was good because I pretty much knew how he was going to react to everything the mediator was telling me. 

Alternative dispute resolution.

RDM attorneys have extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution including arbitration and mediation. We also have certified arbitrators and mediators to help resolve your case.

More about ADR

A doctor treating a patient for COVID-19. Photo courtesy of the US Navy.

A new trend relating to COVID-19 lawsuits is emerging. Employers are now facing lawsuits for “Take Home” infections.

In August, the daughter of Esperanza Ugalde filed a lawsuit against her father’s employer alleging that her mother died of COVID-19 that her father contracted during the scope of his employment at a meat processing plant. The complaint alleges that Ricardo Ugalde worked as a butcher and was “shoulder to shoulder” with his coworkers while working on the processing line. The plaintiff further alleges that the meat processing plant was aware that other employees had become infected with COVID-19 but took no measures to mitigate the spread within the facility.

The complaint includes several negligent actions against the employer. Some of those actions include failure to warn when it knew or should have known of a COVID-19 outbreak at the facility and actively creating a risk of harm for its employees and those with close contact with those employees by not disinfecting the facility nor providing personal protective equipment (PPE).

View the full Ugalde v. Aurora Packing Company complaint here.

This idea of “Take Home” exposure is nothing new. In fact, asbestos litigation has been dealing with these types of cases for quite a while. Praedicat, a firm that evaluates risks for insurers, states that 7% to 9% of U.S. COVID-19 deaths are believed to come from take-home infections. The firm further believes that if American fatalities reaches 300,000, businesses could see a cost up to $21 billion in litigation

To be successful, the plaintiff must show a strong causal chain that connects the sick family member to the worker, and then to the employer and the employer’s alleged negligent actions. Despite this hurdle, businesses should still protect themselves by establishing proper safety procedures for its employees by following CDC guidelines, OSHA regulations, and state and local laws.

Employment and labor law.

Justin Ijei and the Employment Law team at RDM can help your business eliminate potential risks before they arrive.

Contact RDM

A marijuana plant.

In 2018, Missouri became one of the 33 states to pass the legal use of medical marijuana. Since then, Missouri has issued 192 licenses to open dispensaries and 60 licenses to grow marijuana. According to the Associated Press, a lab in Maryland Heights, Missouri was recently approved to start testing samples of marijuana. The lab anticipates that medical marijuana will be available to patients by mid-October this year. 

The use of medicinal marijuana will create challenges for employers trying to keep a drug-free workplace.  Under the Missouri constitutional provision, a person is not permitted to bring a claim against any employer, former employer, or prospective employer for wrongful discharge, discrimination, or any similar cause of action or remedy, based on the employer prohibiting an employee, former employee, or prospective employee from being under the influence of marijuana while at work or disciplining the employee or former employee, up to and including termination from employment, for working or attempting to work while under the influence of marijuana (Mo. Const. Art. 14, § 1). 

Because there are no clear tests to determine whether an employee is under the influence during working hours, there are many questions that await to be answered. It will be important for employers to ensure that their drug-free policy is in compliance with state law.

Questions about employment law?

Justin Ijei and the team at Rasmussen Dickey Moore have extensive experience with employer/employee relationships and regulations. Contact us today to discuss your case.

Contact RDM

An empty courtroom.

The best trial counsel is well prepared and open for improvement. At Rasmussen Dickey Moore we pride ourselves on continuously looking for innovative ways to improve our trial expertise.

Recently a member of our team went to the Defense Research Institute‘s Trial Tactics Seminar in Las Vegas, attending sessions ranging from jury selection to selecting expert witnesses. This event allowed our firm to be on the cutting-edge of trial preparation and defense for trial. From this event we learned new strategies to best support and defend our clients.

We know how important it is to be prepared for trial. RDM is known for its unparalleled attention to detail on every one of our cases. We bring focus and dedication to your case. We’re always seeking new methods and knowledge to add to our arsenal of skills and experience.

What’s your strategy?

When you’re facing a trial, you need to have a plan. Kurt Rasmussen and the team at RDM can make sure you’re prepared to enter the courtroom.

More about Trial Tactics

Gavel.

Rasmussen Dickey Moore’s trial victory for Lincoln Electric and Hobart Brothers in Laningham v. Hobart Brothers and Lincoln Electric was named as a “2017 Top 5 Defense Verdict” by Missouri Lawyers Weekly. RDM attorneys Kurt Rasmussen and Justin Ijei represented Hobart Brothers and Lincoln Electric in a jury trial in Jackson County, Missouri in May 2017.

On January 26th, the team was honored at the Missouri Lawyers Weekly luncheon at the Hilton St. Louis at the Ballpark in St. Louis, Missouri.

RDM delivers results.

RDM has the skills and experience to see your case through to the end.

Contact RDM