A BETTER CASE
Consulting
Forensic
Fraud
Infringement Damages
TDLA
hspragins@hickmanlaw.com
HANNAH LOWE
DRI State Representative h.lowe@farmersinsurance.com
PEYTON CARR
Manier & Herod
pcarr@manierherod.com
GRACE BURNETT
Raney, Kiser, Reviere & Bell gbenetone@raneykiser.com
ROBERT M. HANLON, JR. Goldberg Segalla
Manier
Co-Editors
HANK SPRAGINS is a partner with the Hickman, Goza & Spragins firm in Memphis, TN and Oxford, MS. His practice is devoted to civil litigation that addresses a myriad of disputes that are either trial or appellate related. He handles torts relating to death and injury, products liability, class actions in both federal and state courts, as well as suits against insurance companies relating to bad faith and contract disputes. He may be reached at hspragins@hickmanlaw.com.
A Fellowship of Colleagues
What a year it has been for the TDLA and its members, and we are excited for what the New Year has in store. I wanted to take a minute to highlight accomplishments of our organization in 2024 and look forward to what is ahead.
TDLA’s Next Gen Webinar series, which offers remote-based, one-hour CLE sessions, was a huge success. In 2024, the Next Gen series was aimed at young lawyers by covering the different aspects of a civil defense case. This year, TDLA will again provide its members with Next Gen webinars throughout the year focusing on varying issues of importance for the civil practitioner.
The two in-person conferences in 2024 were informative and well attended. In June, we again partnered with our Alabama colleagues (Alabama Defense Lawyers Association) for the annual summer meeting at the Perdido Beach Resort in Orange Beach, Alabama. As in the past, this summer conference offers a true mix of work and play, and it is a great opportunity to engage with other defense counsel in a relaxed setting. In addition to great food, fellowship and beautiful beaches, attendees got up-to-date continuing education on Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear Verdicts.
In September, we partnered with our Kentucky colleagues (Kentucky Defense Counsel) for a joint annual meeting in Lexington, Kentucky. Our members and sponsors got a private bourbon tasting and a trip to Keeneland to watch world-class horse racing. On the programming side, attendees heard updates on economic versus non-economic damages valuation, real-world insights on accident reconstruction and insightful thoughts on biomechanical expert use. The meeting was such a hit that the Kentucky Defense Counsel will join us this year for another annual meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. I hope that you will help me represent our State through its moto - “TennesseeAmerica at Its Best.”
There are great opportunities to engage with TDLA this year. We are excited to offer a Deposition Academy, aimed at young lawyers, to cover the ins and outs of party, witness and expert depositions. Like in previous years, we will partner with our Alabama colleagues for the TDLA / ADLA Joint Summer Conference scheduled for June 12-15, 2025. If you have not participated in this Joint Conference in the past, this year is a great year to start. Held at the Perdido Beach Resort in Orange Beach, Alabama, the conference is a true mix of work and play.
continued on page 9
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President Hal S. “Hank” Spragins Hickman, Goza & Spragins hspragins@hickmanlaw.com
DRI STATE REPRESENTATIVE
The Gold Standard
This past year, TDLA has participated in the DRI Free Membership program, providing a free one-year DRI membership to first time DRI members or former (lapsed) DRI members whose membership lapsed prior to June 1, 2019. The program ran until our TDLA annual meeting in October 2024. If you joined DRI using the free membership program, I hope you will take some time to learn about the benefits of DRI membership.
In October 2024, I traveled to Seattle, Washington with TDLA leadership President Hank Spragins, Immediate Past President Michael Haynie, and Executive Director Mary Gadd, for the DRI Annual Meeting. We enjoyed exploring Seattle and networking with other DRI and State and Local Defense Organization (“SLDO”) leaders and members from across the country. Highlights for the Tennessee delegation included dinner with other leaders from the DRI Southern Region, which includes Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee, and listening to popular television host and author (and Seattlearea native) Rick Steves. We also participated in the DRI For Life initiatives, which included a “grunge walk/run” to the Space Needle on the first day and a walk to the site of the original Starbucks at Pike Place market for coffee on the second day. Additionally, we enjoyed networking, socializing, and exploring the exhibits at a reception at the Museum of Pop Culture and participating in the DRI Cares initiative, which included stuffing bags for “Blessings in a Backpack,” the charity supported by DRI Cares.
This year, I have been appointed by DRI President Anne Talcott to join the SLDO Relationship Committee, a DRI committee that works to share ideas for collaboration between DRI and SLDOs like TDLA. I look forward to sharing with TDLA membership the efforts of the committee as we move forward.
In 2025, DRI has a full slate of programming planned in locations across the country, including the Drug and Medical Device Seminar and Employment and Labor Law Seminar, which are both coming to Nashville on May 7-9, 2025. If you practice in those areas, I hope you will consider taking advantage of these programs coming to our state in 2025. Mark your calendar as well for the DRI Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois, on October 15-17, 2025.
continued on page 13
HANNAH LOWE has practiced insurance defense litigation since 2011 and currently works for Farmers Insurance Exchange Claims Litigation Department, Tennessee Branch Legal Office. Hannah is originally from England, but has lived in the United States since 2003. She graduated from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 2010. She may be reached at h.lowe@farmersinsurance.com
President Elect Chris Frulla Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell cfrulla@ranieykizer.com
Secretary/ Rachel Bishop
Treasurer Permobil rachel.bishop@permobil.com
Immediate Past
President Michael Haynie Manier & Herod mhaynie@manierherod.com
DRI State Rep Hannah Lowe Farmers Insurance h.lowe@farmersinsurance.com
Director I Sean W. Martin Carr Allison swmartin@carrallison.com
Adrienne Fazio Manier & Herod afazio@manierherod.com
Kenneth D. Veit Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan kenny.veit@leitnerfirm.com
Divisional
Directors Ken Ward Trammell, Adkins and Ward kward@tawpc.com
Christina Hadaway Liberty Mutual christina.hadaway@libertymutual.com
AJ Parker Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell ajparker@raineykizer.com
PAST PRESIDENTS
Percy McDonald, Jr.* (1966-1967) William E. Herod* (1967-1968) Edward P.A. Smith* (1968-1969) Mac E. Robinson* (1969-1968)
James E. Leary* (1970-1971) William H. Woods* (1971-1972) Woodrow Norvell* (1972-1973) Hugh C. Gracey (1973-1974) Henry T. V. Miller (1974-1975) Paul R. Leitner* (1975-1976) J. G. Lackey, Jr.* (1976-1977) R. Hunter Cagle* (1977-1978) E. Blake Moore (1978-1979) Richard D. Taylor* (1979-1980) E. Riley Anderson* (1980-1981) C. Arnold Cameron* (1981-1982)
James H. Camp* (1982-1983)
Thomas A. Williams (1994-1995) Kenneth R. Shuttleworth (1995-1996) Michael E. Evans (1996-1997) Brian H. Trammell* (1997-1998) Dale H. Tuttle (1998-1999) Katherine “Kitty” Boyte (1999-2000) Gary S. Napolitan (2000-2001) Joseph R. White (2001-2002) Gary R. Wilkinson (2002-2003)
Steve A. Dix (2003-2004)
Rebecca Brake
Murray (2004-2005)
James E. Moffitt (1983-1984) W. Ferber Tracy (1984-1985) James M. Doran, Jr. (1985-1986) George S. Petkoff (1986-1987) W. Ritchie Pigue (1987-1988) L. Anderson Gaylon III* (1988-1989) J. Minor Tait, Jr.* (1989-1990) Terry L. Hill (1990-1991) Joseph C. Wilson, III (1991-1992) Gary K. Smith (1992-1993) Michael J. Philbin* (1993-1994)
David J. Deming (2005-2006)
Raymond S. Leathers (2006-2007)
Robert G. Norred (2007-2008) C. Douglas Dooley (2008-2009)
Stephen P. Miller (2009-2010)
Melanie M. Stewart (2010-2011)
Robert A. Crawford (2011-2012)
John W. Barringer, Jr. (2012-2013) Bradford D. Box (2013-2014)
James H. Tucker, Jr. (2014-2015)
Catherine C. Dugan (2015-2016)
Barret S. Albritton (2016-2017)
Michael Mansfield (2017-2018)
Lynn V. Lawyer (2018-2019)
Rockforde D. “Rocky” King (2019-2020)
Heather H. Douglas (2020-2021)
Dawn Carson (2021-2022)
Hannah Lowe (2022-2023)
Michael Haynie (2023-2024)
* Deceased
Streamlining Claims or Increasing Litigation?
THE TENNESSEE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD TAKES A STAND ON PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY CLAIMS
In Oldham v. Freeman Webb Company Realtors, the Appeals Board provided clarification on Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4) regarding an injured worker’s claim for permanent total disability benefits. In this case, an injured worker and their employer reached a settlement for the worker’s permanent partial disability award based on his impairment rating, which was later approved by the trial court. Subsequent to the approval of the settlement, the worker’s initial compensation period ended. At that time, the worker filed a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking increased benefits, extraordinary relief, and an award for permanent total disability. The employer argued that it was improper for the worker to bring a claim for permanent total disability as there had already been a settlement for permanent partial disability. The trial court ultimately awarded permanent total disability benefits.
On appeal, the Appeals Board noted that in 50-6-207(4), there is no language addressing an employee’s eligibility for permanent total disability in circumstances where the employee has already been awarded permanent partial disability or establishing a
statute of limitations for such claims. Moreover, the Board noted that there was also no language in the statute providing for a credit that an employer could claim for the original permanent partial disability award. The Board stated its concern that, should an employee file a petition for permanent total disability benefits after having already received an award for permanent partial disability benefits, there would be no statutory basis for an employer to claim a credit on the previous award.
Ultimately, the Appeals Board held that “a claim for permanent total disability must be pursued within the context of the employee’s original petition, or by amendment of that petition at any time prior to any adjudication of permanent partial disability. Further, we hold that the plain language of the various provisions of the Reform Act, when read as a whole, do not allow for a separate cause of action for permanent total disability benefits following an award of permanent partial disability, whether by settlement or judgment.”
Upon first glance, this is a favorable holding for defense attorneys and their clients in that it prevents an employee from returning after receiving an award of permanent
PEYTON CARR is an associate with Manier & Herod in Nashville primarily practicing in workers’ compensation. Prior to joining Manier & Herod, Peyton clerked for the Honorable Judge Arnold Goldin for the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Memphis. She is a co-editor for the TDLA Journal magazine. She may be reached at pcarr@manierherod.com
partial disability benefits to now claim that they are entitled to an award for permanent total disability benefits. However, this holding now opens the door for injured workers to file claims for permanent total disability benefits at the onset of cases, which may result in more permanent total disability claims than we had previously seen and increase litigation and expenses for defendants. Unsurprisingly, this case is now on appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court and it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will uphold the Appeals Board’s ruling.
Higher Exposure?
PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO INCREASE THE NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES CAP
Proposed legislation amending T.C.A. § 29-39-102 (HB0005), filed by a Brentwood plaintiff attorney on November 6, 2024, would double the cap on noneconomic damages a plaintiff may recover in a civil action. Passage would dramatically increase potential compensation from $750,000.00 to $1,500,000.00. Additionally, the legislation would allow plaintiffs to go after $2,000,000.00 in catastrophic injury or loss cases – as opposed to $1,000,000.00.
On the same date, the same attorney filed proposed legislation amending T.C.A. § 29-20-403(b) to increase the Government Tort Liability Act recoverable limits. The limits would increase from $300,000.00 to $750,000.00 for bodily injury or death of any one person in any one incident; from $700,000.00 to $1,500,000.00 for all persons in any one incident; and from $100,000.00 to $250,000.00 for property damage in any one incident. Both bills are still in the introductory phase, and neither have been entered the committee phase. The Tennessee legislative session begins January 14, 2025. Both proposed bills, if successful, would take effect as early as July 1, 2025.
GRACE BENITONE BURNETT is an associate in the Nashville office of Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell. Her practice is mainly focused on insurance coverage and defense. She may be reached at gbenitone@raineykizer.com
As defense attorneys, the passage of this proposed legislation would undoubtedly affect our clients’ potential exposure. In turn, we could expect insurance rates to increase as a means of combatting higher settlement arrangements or verdicts. We might see an increase in filed lawsuits in Tennessee: where plaintiff attorneys have an opportunity to forum shop, the higher potential recoverable damages might make Tennessee the more attractive venue.
Obviously, there is a public and legal interest in attempting to make an injured person whole. Yet, a majority of Tennesseans’ lives would be destroyed if multimillion-dollar judgments could be taken against them. It is important to strike a balance in our system of compensating plaintiffs for a loss without completely bankrupting defendants.
So, what can we do as Tennessee defense attorneys to make sure our opposition to HB0004 and HB0005? We can immediately contact our local legislators and representatives to convey our concern for excess exposure and increased cost concerns. We should express the importance of preventing increased litigation in our state, as our state would inevitably see an increase in tax dollars and government resources used to in the court system. You can determine the name and contact information for your local lawmaker with a quick Google search. We can also speak to our corporate clients and inform them of the proposed legislation. In turn, the potential issue can be highlighted with their management and the organization may elect to engage in lobbying efforts.
continued from page 4
Piggy-backing off the great success of our collaboration with the Kentucky Defense Counsel in 2024, the KDC will join us this year for our Annual Meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. Please stay tuned for more information about the conference and all that it will have to offer our members.
As before, we had another round of successful in-person happy hours in cities across Tennessee for our young lawyers. We are grateful to our young lawyers for helping host those events. But our young lawyers do so much more, and we need
them engaged. Young lawyers from firms across the state have stepped up in leadership roles within our organization by chairing/co-chairing conferences, serving on state bar committees and by writing articles for our Journal.
We continue to have strong support from our sponsors, and the TDLA could not provide the programming and resources it does without them.
This year, please remember the resources TDLA and our sponsors offer to members. I further encourage
you to take advantage of the CLE opportunities, which will cover a broad range of topics and will be delivered right to your desk (or wherever you may be). Lastly, consider joining us in Orange Beach, Alabama or Nashville, Tennessee for our joint conferences. The fellowship of colleagues is second to none.
Hank Spragins President
A Rules-Based Approach to Deposing Expert Witnesses
Ihad the privilege of learning how to depose experts from my father, who specialized in the expert-intensive practice of representing car and truck manufacturers in product liability litigation. I have since deposed and cross-examined many expert witnesses, and I genuinely enjoy doing so. But I also recognize that sitting across the table from a subject matter expert can be a daunting task for an attorney.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN DRI FOR THE DEFENSE JANUARY 2025
ROBERT M. HANLON, JR. of Goldberg Segalla, LLP co-chairs the firm’s transportation practice group. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, an honor reserved for no more than 1 percent of the total lawyer population of any state or province. He concentrates his practice on the defense of product liability, transportation, and catastrophic personal injury litigation.
The purpose of this short article is to take some of the mystery out of the process and to provide a framework based on the two most important rules governing expert discovery, one procedural and one evidentiary. The questions suggested here are by no means intended to be a complete outline for an expert deposition. Rather, they are meant to provide a framework that covers the basics.
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 governs discovery. If the witness has been retained to provide expert testimony or is an employee whose duties regularly involve giving expert testimony, then the witness must produce a written report that contains the following:
i. A complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them;
ii. The facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;
iii. Any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;
iv. The witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;
v. A list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and
vi. A statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.¹
If the expert is not required to provide a written report, the party proffering the witness must still provide a disclosure of expert testimony, which must state:
i. The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705; and
ii. A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.²
DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
BASED ON RULE 26
These disclosure requirements suggest a good set of opening questions to make sure you have been fairly apprised of the expert’s opinions and the basis for those opinions. Such questions may include:
1. Is this an exact copy of your complete report? Have you prepared any other reports?³
2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires that your report contain a complete statement of all opinions you will express. Does your report contain all of your opinions?⁴
3. Rule 26 also requires that your report contain the basis and reasons for your opinions.
a) Does your report contain all of the bases for your opinions?
b) Does it contain all of the reasons for your opinions?
4. Rule 26 requires that your report contain the facts or data you considered in forming your opinions. 5, 6
a) Does your report contain all facts and data you considered?
b) Have you asked for any additional facts or data that you have not yet received? If so, what did you ask for and why?
5. If there are relevant facts or data that the expert did not consider:
a) Did you [insert what the expert did not do/review]?⁷
b) May that have revealed additional relevant facts or data?
c) May that additional information have affected your opinions?
d) Have you done/reviewed that in other cases? Why?
e) Why didn’t you do/review that in this case?
6. Rule 26 requires that your report contain any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support your opinions. Does your report contain all such exhibits?
7. Rule 26 requires that your report contain your qualifications. Does your report summarize all of your qualifications?
a) Do you hold any professional license(s)? Explain. Have any of your professional license ever been revoked or suspended? Explain.
b) Have you ever been sued for malpractice? What was the outcome? Explain.
8. Rule 26 requires that your report include a list of all publications you have authored in the previous 10 years.⁸
a) Does your report contain that list? Is it complete?
b) Which of those publications were peer reviewed?
c) Which of those publications are relevant to your opinions in this case?Explain.
d) If there are statements in publications (whether authored by the expert or not) that undermine the expert’s opinions, consider identifying them and asking the expert to admit that the publication is a reliable authority.⁹
9. Rule 26 requires that your report contain a list of all other cases
in which, during the previous 4 years, you testified as an expert at trial or by deposition.
a) Does your report contain that list? Is it complete?
b) Has your expert testimony ever been limited or excluded by a court?Explain.
c) In which of those other cases did you render opinions that are similar to (on the same topic as) your opinions in this case? Explain.
10. Rule 26 requires that your report contain a statement of the compensation to be paid to you for your study and testimony in the case.10
a) Does your report contain that?
b) Who is paying you in this case?
c) Have much have you been paid so far? For how many hours?
d) Are you owed any additional money for work that either has not yet been billed or has not yet been paid? How much? For how many hours?
e) Approximately what percentage of your total annual income comes from providing services as an expert witness?
f) Of that, what percentage comes from providing expert services for plaintiffs? For defendants?
These preliminary questions are designed to avoid surprises down the road, whether later in the deposition, in response to a motion to limit or exclude the expert’s testimony, or at trial. They also provide a framework for dealing with any such surprises. If, in response to these questions, an expert witness announces a new opinion or a new basis for a previously disclosed opinion, the questioner can deal with that up front, perhaps by refusing to ask the witness about it
unless/until it is properly and timely disclosed in a supplemental report or, after preserving your objection based on non-disclosure, by asking the witness about it but reserving the right to continue the deposition on that topic later after the court’s ruling on your objection and after consulting with your own expert(s).
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert opinion testimony. As fairly recently amended, it provides that a “witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
d) The expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.”
DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
BASED ON RULE 702
These evidentiary requirements similarly suggest deposition questions. For each opinion expressed by the expert, such questions may include:
1. Why does that topic/issue/ opinion require specialized knowledge? (Why is it beyond the ken of the average juror?)
2. What scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge do you bring to that opinion?¹¹
3. What facts or data is that opinion based on? (Where in your report do you set forth the facts and data that opinion is based on?)12,13
4. What principles and methods did you utilize to reach that opinion?
5. If the reliability of the expert’s principles or methods is questionable, challenge it.14
a) Can that theory or technique be tested? Has it been tested?
b) Has that theory or technique been published or otherwise peer reviewed?
c) What is the known or potential error rate of that technique?
d) Has that theory or technique been generally accepted in the relevant scientific community?
6. How did you apply those principles and methods to the facts of this case to reach that opinion?15
These foundational questions are designed to explore the strength and admissibility of the expert’s opinions, which are only as strong as the facts, principles and methods they are based on. They are also designed to track the elements of Rule 702 so as to make it easier to later challenge the admissibility of seemingly speculative opinions.16
CONCLUSION
Since the disclosure and admissibility of expert opinion testimony is governed by rules, it makes sense to utilize those rules when deposing experts. Hopefully this article provides a framework both for doing that and for preparing your own expert to testify.
1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Draft reports are governed by Rule 26(b)(4)(B). Supplemental reports are governed by Rules 26(a)(2)(E) and 26(e)(2).
2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C).
3 Before the deposition, consider serving a demand for production of any other materials, including notes and calculations, prepared by or on behalf of the expert.
4 In a civil case, “[a]n opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 704.
5 Before the deposition, consider serving a demand for production of any materials reviewed by the expert that have not yet been produced in discovery.
6 At trial, as opposed to in discovery, “an expert may state an opinion — and give the reasons for it — without first testifying to the underlying facts or data.” Opposing counsel may, of course, elicit those facts or data on cross-examination. Fed. R. Evid. 705.
7 E.g., Did you inspect the accident scene/ vehicle? E.g., Did you review the [insert description] documents/photographs/videos?
E.g., Did you review the plaintiff’s medical records from before the accident? E.g., Did you review the radiology images, or only the radiology reports? E.g., Did you examine the plaintiff?
8 Before the deposition, consider serving a demand for production of all publications (“learned treatises”), whether authored by the expert or not, that the expert relies on in support
of his opinions.
9 See Fed. R. Evid. 803(18), Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay, Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets.
10 Before the deposition, consider serving a demand for production of the expert’s invoices.
11 Experts often express multiple opinions, some of which may fall outside their field(s) of expertise.
12 Keep in mind that an expert may base an opinion on facts or data that are not admissible in evidence if experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject. Fed. R. Evid. 703. If the expert being deposed relies on inadmissible facts or data, inquire both as to whether they are the kinds of facts or data that are reasonably relied upon by experts in the field and as to the basis of a claim that they are.
13 As noted above, if there are important facts or data that the expert did not consider, confirm that.
14 See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-595 (1993) (identifying factors a court is to consider when making “a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology [aka theory or technique] underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue,” and emphasizing that “[t]he focus, of course,
must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.”); see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 138 (1999) (holding that the Daubert gatekeeping obli-gation applies not only to “scientific” testimony but also to “technical” or “other specialized” knowledge that is the subject of expert testimony).
15 Id. at 591 (explaining that the consideration of “fit” and Rule 702’s requirement that the expert’s testimony help the trier of fact “goes primarily to relevance” because “[e]pert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case in not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful”).
16 If the expert’s report (or the proffering party’s disclosure) clearly does not disclose a sufficient basis for his opinions, consider foregoing a deposition and moving to exclude the expert’s opinion testimony on the grounds that his report does disclose the required facts and data, the required principles and meth-ods, and the required application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case. As an alternative to exclusion, ask for a preliminary hearing to determine whether the testimony is admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 104.
TDLA Announces New Co-Editors of TDLA Journal
continued from page 5
In February 2025, as your DRI State Representative, I will travel with TDLA leadership, including President Hank Spragins, President Elect Chris Frulla, Secretary Treasurer Rachel Bishop, and Executive Director Mary Gadd, to Miami, Florida for the DRI Southern/Southeast Regional Meeting. We will meet to share ideas and network with our colleagues from the DRI Southern Region (Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee), and the Southeast Region (Alabama, Georgia, Florida).
On March 20-21, 2025, I am also looking forward to connecting with other female DRI and State and Local Defense Organization leaders on at the Southeastern Women’s Litigator’s Conference in Asheville, North Carolina. Registration will be open soon, and I hope you will consider joining us for a wonderful opportunity for networking and quality CLE programming on a diverse range of topics.
TDLA is proud to be a part of DRI, and we hope our members will take advantage of opportunities to get involved in both TDLA and DRI. Please feel free to reach out to me (h.lowe@farmersinsurance.com) with any questions about your DRI membership.
Best,
Hannah Lowe
TDLA is happy to have attorneys Peyton Carr and Gabi Jackson of Manier & Herod as our new co-editors of the TDLA Journal. They are both associates in the Nashville office of Manier & Herod primarily practicing workers’ compensation law. They are actively seeking articles for future Journals and if you are interested in submitting an article, please send to pcarr@manierherod.com or gjackson@manierherod.com
Peyton Carr Gabi Jackson
Tennessee Defense Lawyers Association
TDLA Membership Application
I am a defense attorney and first time member of TDLA and I am a member of DRI.*
In-House Counsel (as defin ed below,** please check if applicable) Young Lawyer (admitte d to the bar for ten years or less)
I am not a member of DRI, but I am interested in a DRI membership.
Male Fe mal e N am e
Tit le Firm
Addr es s
Cit y St at e/Prov i nce
Z ip/Pos t Code Cou nt ry
Te le p h o n e Fa x
Pr i mar y area(s) of p r ac ti c e
A s u bs cr ip ti o n to the TDLA Newsletter is i n c lu d ed in the an n u al d u es .
First time a dmi tted to the Ba r in in
s tate/p rovi nce m on t h / day / y e ar
b a r nu mbe r
Number of years licensed to practice in Tennessee.
< 5 years
5 – 15 years
Over 15 years
I n o rder to maximize the educational and networking opportunities for its members, TDLA has established sections which focus more narrowly on specific practice areas. The list of these appears below. TDLA believes that belonging to one or more sections greatly enhances the value of your membership in TDLA and we encourage you to join those that interest you. Membership in a section is free of charge, requires no additional commitment or responsibility on your part, and you may belong to as many sections as you wish. Please indicate which sections you wish to join by marking the corresponding box(es) below.
Nu mber Employment & Workers Compensation Section P rofessional Negligence & Healthcare Section Torts Section Young Lawyers Section of a ttorne
Pl e ase note: In d i vidual Membership is not transferable. O p t i o n a l
TDLA is committed to the principle of diversity in its membership and leadership. Accordingly, applicants are invited to indicate which one of the following may best describe them:
Ref err ed by
Name of ref erri ng TDLA M ember atto rn ey (if a ppl i c abl e)
Date of b i r th m o n t h /d ay/y e a r
I devote 51% or more of my professional time to the representation of business, insurance companies or their insureds, associations or governmental entities in civil litigation. I have read the above and hereby make application for individual membership.
SLDO* Members Offer Membership Application
I am a first-time DRI member and I am a member of my SLDO. Note: DRI will contact your SLDO to confirm your membership with them before processing. Categories for individual membership in DRI:
Defense Attorney—$285 USD/year
I n-House Counsel—$285 USD/year (as defined below ***)
G overnment Attorney—$160 USD/year
one seminar**
A subscription to For The Defense is included in the annual dues for ALL price categories.
Please note: Individual membership is not transferable. If you have any questions, contact Customer Service at 312.795.1101.
Young Lawyer—$165 USD/year (admitted to the Bar for five years or less). Young Lawyers free registration for one seminar is valid for as long as you are a member of the Young Lawyers Committee.
National Foundation for Judicial Excellence (NFJE) Contribution—$35 USD/year
Male Female Name Title Firm
First time admitted to the Bar in in state/province month/day/year
. bar number
I am a member of a state or local defense organization.
Yes No
Name of organization
I am an armed services veteran.
Primary area(s) of practice
DRI encourages you to join committees to greatly enhance the value of your membership. Just check the boxes (no limit) on the Join a Committee form, last page.
DRI is committed to the principle of diversity in its membership and leadership. Accordingly, applicants are invited to indicate which of the following may best describe them:
Referred by
Name of referring DRI Member attorney (if applicable)
African American A sian American Hispanic N ative American Caucasian Multi-Racial LGBT Other
Date of birth MM/DD/YY
AMOUNT DUE
Membership
I devote a substantial portion of my professional time to the representation of business, insurance companies or their insureds, associations or governmental entities in civil litigation. I have read the above and hereby make application for individual membership. I authorize DRI to send me announcements via mail, facsimile and phone about its programs, services and all other offerings that may be of interest to me or my colleagues. I also consent to receipt of notices from DRI in electronic form, including email. I understand I have the right to withdraw my consent at any time.
Signature
Date
All applications must be signed and dated.
*S LDO=State and Local Defense Organization
** N on-transferable and expires 18 months after join date; excludes the Annual Meeting.
* ** In-house counsel is defined as a licensed attorney who is employed exclusively by a corporate or other private sector organization, for the purpose of providing legal representation and counsel only to that corporation, its a ffi liates and subsidiaries.
† S ee reverse side for NFJE description and state disclosure information.
†† S ee reverse side for Auto Pay Terms and Conditions.
NFJE Contribution†
PAYMENT METHOD
Please remit payment to: DRI 72225 Eagle Way Chicago, IL 60678-7252 P: 312.795.1101 | F: 312.795.0747 membership@dri.org | dri.org
My c heck for $ (USD) is enclosed.
Pl ease bill me. (Your membership will be inactive until DRI receives payment.) Pl ease charge my credit card. ( Provide card information below.)
E nroll me in Dues Auto Pay.†† (You must check this box and sign below to be officially enrolled. By signing, you agree to Terms and Conditions on reverse side. Provide card information below.) VISA MasterCard American Express Card #
Exp. Date CVC
Authorized signature
Hannah Lowe
TENNESSEE CHAPTER
Kreis White
Richard Marcus
David W. Noblit
Ronald D. Wells
Mark C. Travis
John T. Blankenship
Jeffrey Ward
Robert L. Arrington
Paul D. Hogan Jr.
Dana C. Holloway
James H. London
Sarah Y. Sheppeard
C. Scott Taylor
William D. Vines III
Howard H. Vogel
Allen S. Blair
Hon. George Brown (Ret.) PHONE (615) 309-0400 (423) 756-0414 (423) 265-0214 (423) 756-5051 (931) 252-9123 (615) 627-9390 (423) 639-6811 (423) 723-0402 (865) 546-2200 (865) 643-8720 (865) 637-0203 (865) 546-4646 (865) 546-8030 (865) 637-3531 (865) 546-7190 (901) 820-4347 (901) 523-2930
(615) 843-0308 (615) 651-6775 (615) 815-0472 (615) 973-2630 (615) 850-8752