So we all know that President Obama is talking about some type of Health Care reform in America. I can tell you from years of representing those injured in car accidents, here in Raleigh and across the state of North Carolina, that we need some type of health care reform. The folks that need coverage the most often can not get it. And small businesses (even law firms) see their premiums rise EVERY YEAR. My health insurance premiums for my firm have gone up nearly 10% every year for the past 8 years.
So as part of the political debate, Obama is talking about changing health insurance, but he is also talking about medical malpractice reform. Some of my fellow trial lawyers are getting stirred up because we don't think that extending coverage of health care ought to also limit an injured person's access to justice.
Here are some links which discuss Obama's comments in the last few days:
Obama Talks Up Liability Reform
Politico
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23783.html
In Pitch to AMA, Obama Paints Mixed Picture
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/15/AR2009061501744.html
Cost Concerns as Obama Pushes Health Issue
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/health/policy/16obama.html?hpw
Obama Calls Cost of Healthcare a Threat to Economy
Chicago Tribune/LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-ama16-2009jun16,0,1354461.story
I tend to agree with the gist of the Politico article: Obama has to keep all options on the table and speak in terms that ever player in the debate feels are near and dear to their interests.
I think the debate will be rational, and because of that I think that the data which show that very little of the overall cost of health care has anything to do with malpractice lawsuits will not be ignored. There are things that can be done to decrease the cost of lawsuits. Call it reform or not, that's up to you.
I commonly request that each side to a malpractice suit be limited in the number of expert witnesses who can be used on a certain subject. Almost universally the lawyers for the Doctors will not voluntarily limit the number of expert witnesses. This increases the costs to defend these suits. There is one liability reform I'm fine with implementing.
Chris Nichols
CNN and WRAL are reporting that two people were found dead and a third person is still believed missing in a Garner food plant heavily damaged in a morning explosion.
I frequently serve as an arbitration panel member for Uninsured (UM) and Underinsured Cases (UIM) in NC. Our standard UIM & UM policy says that if the claimant opts for arbitration instead of jury trial, then they get arbitration. This is a supremely efficient use of time and probably saves the state of North Carolina MILLIONS of dollars in judicial and court costs every year. I'd estimate that an arbitration which takes about 4 hours to complete would typically take at least 3 days of a jury trial, with the costs of Judges, Bailiffs, Court reporters, Court Clerks, and Jurors.
Arbitration is a good thing when it is at the option of the injured person.
One issue that is constantly debated on arbitration panels is the issue of "Prejugment" Interest on the Arbitration Award. A new case from the North Carolina Court of Appeals clarifies this often hotly debated subject.
The case is Hamby v. Williams, NO. COA08-662 (May 2009) which supports the leading case on the issue Sprake v. Leche, 188 N.C. App. 322, 658 S.E.2d 490 (2008)
In Hamby, the arbitration panel was asked to award interest on the award but deferred that issue to the Superior Court "for further review". The plaintiff presented evidence of the date of filing of the complaint. The Superior Court denied Plaintiff's motion for interest and confirmed the arbitration award. In Hamby, the court first confirms that Interest is available under the standard insurance policy.
[Insurance carriers contend that] the UIM/UM policy “does not specify anywhere that a party is entitled to prejudgment interest on an arbitration or jury award.” This assertion is incorrect. The applicable provision of the policy provides that “[UIM carrier] will pay all sums the 'insured' is legally entitledto recover as compensatory damages . . . .” In Sprake v. Leche, 188 N.C. App. 322, 658 S.E.2d 490 (2008), this Court held that prejudgment interest is part of compensatory damages for which an UIM carrier is liable. Id. at 325, 658 S.E.2d at 492 (citingBaxley v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 334 N.C. 1, 11, 430 S.E.2d 895, 901 (1993) and Austin v. Midgett, 159 N.C. App. 416, 419, 583 S.E.2d 405, 409 (2003)). Since the policy specifically provides for payment of “compensatory damages” these cases control. The arbitration provision provides that if the parties disagree on the amount of damages, then the matter may be arbitrated. The arbitration provision in no manner limits the scope of “compensatory damages” and the above-referenced provision of the policy controls.
Then the court goes on to establish HOW a Plaintiff can get interest awarded.
In the instant case, the parties consented to arbitrate plaintiff's UIM claim “in accordance with the terms of the policy of insurance[.]” The parties stipulated that the issue to be determined was the amount of plaintiff's “damages resulting from the auto accident of May 22, 2003[.]” The terms of the policy provided for “compensatory damages,” which included prejudgment interest. Id. at 325, 658 S.E.2d at 492. We thus hold the arbitration agreement did encompass prejudgment interest. Since the arbitration agreement encompassed prejudgment interest, and this issue was deferred to the trial court for resolution, Palmer, Eisinger, and Blantonare not applicable, and an award of prejudgment interest would not constitute a modification of the arbitration award. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 24-5(b) (2007) provides that: “[i]n an action other than contract, any portion of a money judgment designated by the fact finder as compensatory damages bears interest from the date the action is commenced until the judgment is satisfied.” We hold this provision to be mandatory and not discretionary on the part of the trial court, and that the trial court erred in not awarding prejudgment interest to plaintiff. (emphasis added) The portion of the trial court's order denying prejudgment interest to plaintiff is reversed and this matter is remanded for entry of judgment awarding plaintiff prejudgment interest.
So what does this mean? How do you get interest?
1. Have an arbitration agreement that includes, at least, the following:
(A) The "issue to be determined is the amount of plaintiff's compensatory damages resulting from the auto accident of ......"
(B) The arbitration is to proceed "“in accordance with the terms of the policy of insurance".
2. You MUST ADDRESS and ASK for prejudgment interest at the time of the arbitration.
3. If the panel does not address the issue of interest in the award, you will not get interest from a Superior Court Judge even if you attempt to get it by having the award entered as a judgment. See Blanton v. Isenhower, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (April 7, 2009) (No. 08-864) which cites the original "killer" of interest awards, Palmer v. Duke Power Co., 129 N.C. App. 488, 499 S.E.2d 801 (1998) (sorry no link, but basically the Court said that if the arbitrators did not address something in an Award, a Court can not modify that award unless it is simply a mathematical error.)
My last bit of advice is to advise your opposing counsel that you are seeking interest before the arbitration. Send a copy of the Hamby case. Get a copy of the policy and make sure that the language works for you. Prepare a "suggested" award for the panel which addresses the interest issue. Be prepared to hand up cases to the Panel confirming they have the power to award interest.
Chris Nichols
Nichols Law Firm
Congratulations to attorney Patrick J. Loughren of Pennsylvania for his victory in Tristani v. Richman, a medicaid subrogation case.
I don't have a lot of time today to dig through this case, which is 50 pages long and denser than a fruitcake, but this is, in my opinion, and "extension" on Ahlborn. also, it addresses that tricky part of Ahlborn stemming from the "stipulation" of the meds and the "either/or' aspect of the case as presented to SCOTUS.
Here is a good summary from Med Law Blog by Michael Cassidy:
In the matter of Andrews v. Haygood, on December 12, 2008, the NC Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals opinionwhich rejected the application of Ahlborn v. Arkansas to NC medicaid third party subrogation. Justice Newby wrote the opinion from which Justices Hudson, Brady and Timmons-Goodson dissented.
The gist of the majority opinion is that the majority interprets Ahlborn (which you will recall is a US Supreme Court decision) to say that NC Medicaid must have some mechanism to protect the injured party from giving ALL of their settlement or verdict to Medicaid. The majority goes on to say that NC's 1/3 rule is just that stop gap measure and thus NC law is within the requirements of Ahlborn.
Of course, the Ahlborn opinion actuallysays that Medicaid can only collect their prorata portion of a settlement as it relates to the medical bills Medicaid paid, but that was more or less ignored by our court. Ahlborn boils down to this: If the injured party collects 25% of the actual value of their case then EVERYONE, including Medicaid, should get 25% of what they are owed. All boats rise and fall with the incoming tide. Share and share a like. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You get it, right?
Well, the majority didn't.
They think that our "1/3 of the total settlement" cap on Medicaid recovery is the same thing as the Ahlborn "fair share" requirement. How? Well, because they said so, I guess. In fact, they not only said so, but implied that the Legislature "may have" intended the "cap" to work in this fashion, despite the fact that the cap was enacted YEARS before Ahlborn.
A simple example of impossibility:
Person in wreck has $200,000 of medical bills. Medicaid pays $100,000. The defendant only has $50,000 in insurance. What should Medicaid get, what should the client get?
Ahlborn Anlaysis:
1. What's the case worth? At least $200,000, probably more like $500,000 plus, but of course we can't know exactly. So let's say $500,000.
2. Ratio of settlement to Value: $50,000 : $500,000 = 10%
3. Medicaid lien of $50,000 x 10% = $5,000 to Medicaid (the fair share)
Andrews Analysis:
1. What's the case worth? Who cares!! In Andrews, ask, how much was the settlement? $50,000
2. What is 1/3 of the settlement? $50,000/3 = $16,666.66
3. Is Medicaid's lien > 1/3? If yes, pay only 1/3. Medicaid will get $16,666.66 here.
My question: How can $16,666.66 and $5,000.00 BOTH comply with Ahlborn (the law of the land)?
ANSWER: They can't, and the Minority opinion, written by Justice Hudson, points this out. I'll discuss that in my next post.
CURRENT STATUS: Petition of Cert. to the Supreme Court of the United States has been filed.
So what should a (or this Raleigh) personal injury lawyer do with similar Medicaid issues right now? Well, I'd be in no rush to get them resolved in state court. I think our Superior Court Judges are stuck with Andrews right now. One might also consider going the Federal route. Or waiting for the US Supreme Court.
_____________
Chris Nichols
A great op-ed piece about the horrible and judicially mutilated zombie of ERISA Laws.
Fourteen years ago, a single mother named Ann Dunham began a long, ultimately unsuccessful battle with cancer – and a simultaneous war with her health insurance provider. Over and over, as Ms Dunham's son, Barack Obama, recounted during the October 6 presidential debate, company representatives suggested that his mother's cancer "may have been a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment".
Ann Dunham's story is hardly unique. Millions of Americans know well that the pain of serious illness is often compounded by endless jousts with insurers arbitrarily withholding coverage of physician-prescribed care. Myriad court records tell the stories of people like Maureen Kurtek, who lost five fingertips and most of her right foot after her husband's employer switched to an insurer which resisted continuing to cover her lupus treatment. And of construction manager James Lind, who was able to continue working despite his multiple sclerosis, until his insurer abruptly declined to continue paying for the prescription that had kept his MS at bay. And Rhonda Bast, who died after her insurer refused coverage of a bone marrow transplant which could have prevented her cancer from spreading to her brain.
Many of these sad stories could and should have been avoided. The fault lies with senior federal officials driven by the same deregulatory fervour responsible for enabling the imprudent lending frenzy behind the current financial crisis. In this case, however, the zealots do not run administrative agencies or departments. They preside at the United States supreme court. Over the past quarter-century, court majorities, led principally by Justice Antonin Scalia, have systematically dismantled the framework of laws designed to prevent benefit providers from breaking their promises to patients like Ann Dunham.
The keystone of this protective framework is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, known by its acronym, Erisa. Congress passed Erisa in 1974 to protect the pensions and employer-provided health plans which millions of Americans rely upon. Yet the supreme court has twisted this law into something quite different. As noted by Senate judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, the court's perversion of Erisa is a prime example of decisions that have turned laws "on their heads, making them protections for big business rather than ordinary citizens."
Erisa sets strict standards to ensure that employers and insurers administering group benefit plans act "solely in the interests of beneficiaries for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits," not their own bottom-line. But the court has rendered these protections meaningless. In a Catch-22 decision written by Justice Scalia, a 5-4 majority held that, when plan administrators violate their obligations under the law, victims may not recover any monetary compensation for resulting losses they suffer. Adding insult to injury, the court has read Erisa as a warrant for "pre-empting" – ie abolishing – pre-existing state law protections, leaving victims with literally no recourse. Thus, in the words of, the late Justice Byron White, the supreme court has achieved the "perverse anomaly of leaving those Congress set out to protect with less protection than they enjoyed before Erisa was enacted."
When forced to apply the supreme court's "tangled" Erisa rules, ordinarily circumspect federal judges have often harshly attacked them. Most famously, the late Chief Judge Edward Becker, a Republican named to the third circuit court of appeals by President Reagan, excoriated Justice Scalia and his allies for converting Erisa "into a shield that insulates HMOs from liability for even the most egregious acts of dereliction committed against plan beneficiaries, a state of affairs directly contrary to the intent of Congress." Judge Becker stressed that the court's distortion of Erisa creates "strong incentives for HMOs to deny claims in bad faith or otherwise 'stiff' participants." The systemic result, he added, is a "'race to the bottom' in which the most profitable HMOs will be those that deny claims most frequently."
A recently discovered insurance company memo (pdf) confirms Judge Becker's insight. This smoking gun, an internal company directive, instructed claims processors to structure "new and existing policies" so as to ensure that they would be subject to Erisa. Once covered by this federal law originally hailed as a landmark safeguard for beneficiaries, the memo forecast, the company could eliminate over 90% of its payouts to claimants seeking redress for denials of coverage.
Immunity for health insurers is just one gift which the supreme court has given to powerful interests that find compliance with the law inconvenient. The most notorious recent example is the 2007 Ledbetter decision, in which the court's five conservatives held that victims of pay discrimination have only six short months to seek relief – even if they do not learn of the discrimination until years later. But the supreme court has also thwarted Congress' efforts to protect Americans with disabilities against discrimination (pdf). It has erected unprecedented barriers to patients seeking redress for unlawfully withheld Medicaid benefits, pre-empted state predatory lending (pdf) curbs, and extended lawsuit immunity to the manufacturers of dangerous medical devices. In case after case, the court has achieved de facto repeal of federal guarantees by eliminating citizens' ability to enforce them in court, and, through pre-emption, secured outright repeal of state law protections.
As the new president rolls out new proposals for ensuring health and economic security, he should not ignore the court's drive to roll back existing safeguards. If he acts fast, he could score some significant early wins, and send a clear signal that the new sheriff in town is serious about justice for ordinary citizens. Early in this Congressional term, it could be possible to legislatively "fix" decisions that distort major laws like Erisa and the Civil Rights Act equal pay guarantees upended in the Ledbetter case. His agency heads can rescind the mass of Bush administration regulations and policies that pre-empt vital state legal protections. His justice department can press the federal courts to faithfully construe laws in line with their original reformist purposes, and stop importing stealth deregulatory designs recently in vogue. Most important for the long-term, the president, together with allies in the Senate, can sensitise new judicial nominees to the priority of robust enforcement of guarantees protecting Americans' pocket book needs.
By targeting courts that coddle corporate law-breakers, President Obama can engineer change that will save millions of Americans from major financial, physical, and emotional travail.
Simon Lazarus and Ian Millhiser are attorneys with the National Senior Citizens Law Centre
Here are the folks I endorsed that were elected:
NC SUPREME COURT
Sam J. Ervin, IV – Court of Appeals (Tyson seat) www.ervinforcourtofappeals.com
North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jim Wynn – Court of Appeals www.judgewynn.com
Cheri Beasley – Court of Appeals (McCullough seat) www.judgecheribeasley.com
Linda Stephens – Court of Appeals www.judgelinda.org
John Martin – Court of Appeals (unopposed)
"DOWN TICKET" Candidates
Roy Cooper – Attorney General www.roycooper.com
Janet Cowell – State Treasurer www.janetcowell.com
Elaine Marshall – Secretary of State www.elainemarshall.org
Wayne Goodwin – Insurance Commissioner www.waynegoodwin.org
Beth Wood – State Auditor www.bethwoodcampaign.com
Wake County Judicial Elections
Jacqueline L. Brewer (incumbent) District Court Judge
Anna Elena Worley,(open seat) District Court Judge
Christine Walczyk (incumbent) District Court Judge
YOUR VOTE COUNTS- Thanks for voting!
Well, we are at less than 30 6 days 10 hours to election time and it is time for my annual Judicial Endorsements post (and a few other races you may not know much about).
NC elects all of our Judges, we do not have an appointment system or retention elections. This is a great system in the sense that there is very little "inside politics" going on, but it is also a not-so-great system because most citizens have virtually no idea who the judicial candidates are, OR what "qualifies" someone to be a good Judge.
So I am setting out below who I endorse this election. My criteria for endorsement is that the Judicial candidates must be experienced, show judicial demeanor, be impartial, and be fundamentally connected to the preservation of individual constitutional rights and consumer rights.
CLICK HERE FOR A PRINTABLE GUIDE in PDF format: Download 2008_voting_guide_1.pdf
NC STATEWIDE JUDICIAL ENDORSEMENTS
NC SUPREME COURT
Suzanne Reynolds – Supreme Court (Edmunds seat) www.suzannereynolds.org
Professor Reynolds (as I have always known her) is a family law professor (and my ethics law professor) at Wake Forest University School of Law. She is one of the foremost experts in Family Law in this state. She's been a professor for 27 years. Family Law expertise is vitally important to our High Court because behind most family law questions are real people needing real justice.
Kristin Ruth – Court of Appeals (Tyson seat) www.judgeruth.com
Sam J. Ervin, IV – Court of Appeals (Tyson seat) www.ervinforcourtofappeals.com
So this endorsement is a tie. Both candidates listed above are highly qualified and either would make an excellent addition to the Supreme Court.
North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jim Wynn – Court of Appeals www.judgewynn.com
Judge Wynn is the incumbent and consistently writes well reasoned and well balanced opinions. He's a Navy veteran, he's been talked about as a Federal Judge, and he's endorsed by EVERY major newspaper in NC. This race is a no brainer.
Cheri Beasley – Court of Appeals (McCullough seat) www.judgecheribeasley.com
Linda Stephens – Court of Appeals www.judgelinda.org
Judge Stephens is the incumbent. She's been on the COA for years and has shown herself to be insightful and well balanced in her opinions. She's well liked by almost all lawyers who appear before her. Keep Linda Stephens.
John Arrowood – Court of Appeals www.judgearrowood.com
John Martin – Court of Appeals (unopposed)
"DOWN TICKET" Candidates
I usually confine my endorsements to the Judicial Elections, but this year I'm going to make a few recommendations for the "down ticket" races. While these races are partisan, most of us don't have a lot of contact in our daily lives with the issues controlled by the down ticket races. As a lawyer, my life and my client's lives can be deeply changed by the rules and regulations promulgated by these positions. If you vote straight ticket, you need to read these.
Roy Cooper – Attorney General www.roycooper.com
Roy Cooper is the incumbent. He's consistently been willing to intervene in "hot topics" and do "the right thing". Example: Cooper's office stepped into the highly politicized Duke Lacrosse case and cleared the players of wrongdoing. He's provided good leadership to our Attorney General office and has been a strong advocate for consumer protection laws, cracking down on bad mortgage lenders, unfair "pay day" lenders, and fraudulent car sales. He has a particularly strong record of pursuing "identity theft" operations.
Janet Cowell – State Treasurer www.janetcowell.com
Janet is usually well qualified for this job. A Wharton School of business graduate, she can certainly keep our state retirement funds safely invested during troubling economic times.
Elaine Marshall – Secretary of State www.elainemarshall.org
Elaine Marshall is simply wonderful. She has automated and computerized all of the corporate records in North Carlina, saving businesses and lawyers millions of dollars in lost time because we don't have to manually record and search for records of incorporation. Her office is responsive and helpful. She well liked by both parties and should remain in her office.
Wayne Goodwin – Insurance Commissioner www.waynegoodwin.org
In my mind, this is the MOST IMPORTANT downticket race this year. Not many people know this, but North Carolina enjoys very low insurance rates because we are one of very few states where the Commissioner of Insurance has final authority to set rates. In other words, insurance companies MUST request rate increases from the Commissioner of Insurance and must prove why they deserve a rate hike. Our long time incumbent Commissioner Jim Long has a long record of refusing unnecessary rate hikes, and as a result consumers and businesses have saved an incredible amount of money on insurance premiums. Wayne Goodman is a lawyer, a consumer advocate, and has been Jim Long's "right hand man" for many years. We can count on him to keep the Insurance Commissioner's office as an advocate for the people of North Carolina.
Goodwin also pledges, like his boss,Long did, to fight any effort by Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.C. to convert from nonprofit to for-profit status, as well as to use the very limited powers available to his office to hold BCBS to its historic public-interest role in health care. Goodwin's opponent, by accounts a nice guy, was a long time Democrat turned Republican who has no experience in insurance regulation.
Mary Fant Donnan – Labor Commissioner http://www.maryfantdonnan.com
The NC Labor Commissioner is responsible for a few more things than just inspecting elevators. One of the more powerful duties is overseeing all OSHA investigations in North Carolina. OSHA, in essence, keeps the workplace safe, and the enforcement of OSHA laws sometimes means life or death to workers. Under our current commissioner, the labor department has been decidedly "pro-business" which translates roughly as "anti-worker." Donnan served as director of research and policy for the Labor Department under former Commissioner Harry Payne, one of the most capable labor commissioners the state has had. She is well-prepared to enact reforms in the Labor Department. The Charlotte Observer has good piece on why our current Labor Commissioner should be replaced: LINK TO OBSERVER ARTICLE
Beth Wood – State Auditor www.bethwoodcampaign.com
The State Auditor keeps our government honest with our tax dollars. The current Auditor has used his position to wage many political wars and is currently locked in a battle with the Governor's Ethics Commission. The Auditor should truly run along non-partisan lines, and Beth Wood seems the perfect fit for the job. She has been a Certified Public Accountant for 20 years and served in the State Auditor's Office for more than a decade under two different administrations.
Ronnie Ansley – Agriculture Commissioner www.ansley4ag.com
Ansley received a bachelor’s degree in Agriculture Education from North Carolina State, a Master’s degree in Agriculture Education from Clemson, and a law degree from Mississippi College School of Law. He is presently serving as the National President of the Future Farmers of America Alumni Association.
He advocates that we must invest in renewable-sustainable green energy sources for fuel production.
For the animal lovers out there, you might be interested to know that the Ag Commissioner is responsible for setting the euthanasia standards for animals in North Carolina.
The winner of the race for NC Commissioner of Agriculture will greatly determine how homeless cats and dogs die in our state. The incumbent, Steve Troxler, favors keeping the gas chamber as a method of euthanasia. Gassing is a horrible way to die; it is often reported that animals cry, defecate, urinate, claw to get out, fight each other, vomit, etc.
National humane organizations recommend injection of sodium phenobarbital as the preferred method of euthanasia.
Ronnie Ansley, has said, “I believe we should always look to the most humane way to handle euthanasia, and I do not believe gas chambers are the way to handle this issue.”
Wake County Judicial Elections
Most of the local Judicial races are "unopposed" and so we don't need to discuss those. Don't be frustrated by not having a choice. No choice means that the local attorneys feel that the Judge is doing a good job and therefore no lawyers feel the need to "run against" the incumbent. That's good news, really. Of course, opposed races don't mean anything bad about the incumbent, just that someone decided to run. Don't read into it either way is what I'm saying.
Here are my recommendations in the contested races:
Jacqueline L. Brewer (incumbent) District Court Judge
Judge Brewer is the incumbent who was appointed to a new seat by our current governor. She came from the prosecutors office after 26 years there and by all accounts has been a great Judge.
Anna Elena Worley,(open seat) District Court Judge
http://annaworleyforjudge.com/
Anna Worley is a:
I've known Anna since undergraduate days at Wake Forest. She's amazingly fair minded and knowledgeable. Her knowledge of family law is a very important attribute for the District Court as the District Courts handle about 99% of family law disputes. Anna won the primary election by almost 10,000 votes over her opponent in this election. She'll be fair and hold everyone to the burden of proof they have. While her opponent is a very nice guy and a good lawyer, he's recently been arrested for a second DWIwhich I believe would compromise his ability to be a District Court judge because if he is convicted (his first court date is October 17th) he could be subject to sanctions from the Judicial Standards Commission. I realize that no one is perfect and we all make mistakes and everyone is innocent until proven guilty but this is a very recent mistake, during an election and would mean we are electing a Judge entering the office under the cloud of a controversy. District Court judges are the court officials that decide guilt and innocence for DWI convictions. To me, this seems like a real problem to be both the defendant and the Judge.
Christine Walczyk (incumbent) District Court Judge
http://www.judgechristine.com/
Judge Walczyk attended the University of North Carolina School of Law at Chapel Hill and went on to open her own law practice in Raleigh. She's the incumbent and is well liked and respected for her judicial demeanor.
Her opponent in this race has been criticized for unprofessional behavior. In 2003, before the Wake Public Defender's Office was created, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens barred Rand (her opponent) from representing indigent clients where the State pays for the legal defense. Here is the full article from the N&0.
YOUR VOTE COUNTS- Verify your voting status and vote early
If you want information about your local race, you can view a personalized sample ballot (and check on your registration status) at the NC State Board of Elections website. Just enter your name and you can verify your voting status, voting location, and view a full sample ballot for your voting precinct.
Election Day is Tuesday, November 4, and "early voting" (one stop voting) begins Thursday October 16 through Saturday November 1st. Wake County Early Voting information can be found here on the Wake County Board of Elections Website. State wide early voting information can be found here at the State Board of Elections One-Stop Voting Guide.
Exercise your right to vote!
CLICK HERE FOR A PRINTABLE GUIDE in PDF format: Download 2008_voting_guide_1.pdf
__________________
Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrial Law.com