On Demand Audio

Requests for Admission: The Litigator’s Underutilized Weapon

Produced on September 22, 2019

Taught by
$ 89 Litigation and Elder Law In Stock
Get started now

$299 / year - Access to this Course and 1,500+ Lawline courses

or

Course Information

Time 75 minutes
Difficulty Beginner

Course Description

Even the most ardent fans of Requests for Admission (RFA’s) freely admit to taking far too little advantage of this tool, while others rarely attempt to utilize it. The first responses to RFA’s are rarely responsive - and usually evasive - due to the type of concessions that are usually sought, and therefore motion practice surrounding RFA’s is essential. Properly executed and argued RFA’s can be game-changers, in negotiating settlements, and even in trial. 

In this course, practitioners will be acquainted with the purpose, utility, and strategic strength of RFA’s. The audience will also be provided with real-world examples of how (and how not to) properly serve, enforce and litigate RFA inquiries.


Learning Objectives:

  1. Review the basic principles of Requests for Admission
  2. Outline the basic components of RFA’s
  3. Avoid the pitfalls of improper crafting
  4. Draft follow-up requests
  5. Enforce appropriate responses with motion practice
  6. Share RFA’s with experts
  7. Utilize RFA’s in depositions and trials


This course originally appeared as a part of our September 2019 Bridge the Gap event.  

Credit Information

After completing this course, Lawline will report your attendance information to {{ accredMasterState.state.name }}. Please ensure your license number is filled out in your profile to ensure timely reporting. For more information, see our {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} CLE Requirements page . After completing this course, {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} attorneys self-report their attendance and CLE compliance. For more information on how to report your CLE courses, see our {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} CLE Requirements FAQ .

Faculty

David Cohen

Cohen Abuse Analytics Law, LLC

Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney.  

Decades of legal advocacy for consumers in obtaining nursing home negligence settlements and litigation for those harmed by Corporate Abuse Committed by the Nursing Home Industry.

Litigation Support and Consultation for attorneys litigating against the Long Term Care Industry. Register for one of Cohen's Continuing Legal Education Programs on Nursing Home Litigation - 93 minutes.

Advocacy for Consumers through third-party tort litigation and legal malpractice lawsuits who have been harmed by excessive divorce costs and other harms resulting from malpractice and Divorce Attorney Billing Abuse.

Specialized Client Representation and Attorney Instruction:

Elder Abuse and Assisted Living Facility Litigation

Group Homes

Hospital Abuse

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS:

Member, New Jersey State Bar Association

Past Chair of Public Education, Mercer County Bar Association

Past Chair of the National Nursing Home Litigation Group of the American Association for Justice 

Past National Chair, American Association for Justice – Sections and Litigation Group Coordination Committee

Chair of over 35 National and State level instructional attorney seminars on Nursing Home Litigation through the American Association for Justice, The New Jersey Association for Justice, The New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education - and others.

BAR ADMISSIONS:

New Jersey

United States District Court, District of New Jersey

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

EDUCTATION:

J.D., Rutgers University School of Law – Camden, 1989

B.A., Economics and Philosophy; George Washington University, 1986

BACKGROUND:  

TRIAL  

Co‑counsel on trial team generating the largest nursing home verdict in New Jersey history, Dwyer v. Harborview – in the amount of 13.2 million dollars.  

After hearing 7 weeks of evidence and witnesses, which included photographs of stage IV pressure ulcers (bedsores), evidence of lethal levels of nutritional deprivation, plaintiff’s contentions of falsifications in the medical record and plaintiff’s contentions of inadequate staffing and care, the jury returned with the largest verdict in Hudson County history. Immediately following the verdict, numerous post-verdict filings were made by both the plaintiff and the defense. Over one year after the verdict, the trial judge determined that it had given improper instructions to the jury, as a consequence of the opinions expressed in the text of an unrelated decision released on a different case (that had not been released until nearly a year after this verdict). However, the content of the instructions at issue in Dwyer were agreed upon by Plaintiff, the defense and the Court itself. The Court ordered the parties to re-try the case. Soon, the case found its way before the Appellate Division (a higher-level court), with Plaintiff’s contention that the trial court’s instructions were proper, were wholly in line with the as-yet unreleased and unrelated decision and were unassailable by virtue of the fact that they were acceded to by the defense. 

For those reasons, Plaintiff’s filing with the Appellate Division demanded that the $13,200,00 verdict remain intact. 

While that issue was pending in the appellate court, the case resolved confidentially for an undisclosed sum. 

The verdict was the subject of an intense two-day attorney instructional seminar in Washington, DC, co-chaired by Cohen, numerous local and national articles, received coverage on the front page of the New York Times and remains the largest nursing home verdict in New Jersey History.

INVESTIGATION WITH U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE  

Worked directly with the United States Department of Justice on the matter of United States v. Mercer County. This is the only CRIPA (Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons) claim ever brought by the United States Government against a New Jersey Nursing Home. Cohen worked closely with both investigators and the U.S. Attorney’s Office - on a confidential basis prior to release of findings - in uncovering sub‑standard conditions at a facility known then as the Mercer County Geriatric Center. The coordinated effort resulted in not only a lawsuit filed by the United States against Mercer County Geriatric Center, but additionally the appointment of significant oversight – leading to higher quality care for the residents at that facility.