Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2014/04/23/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:27:50+00:00

Document:
Career mojo gone? Life mojo missing? Want it back?
Experiments show that when people are primed to feel high levels of distress, the quickest to recover are those who can identify how they are feeling and put those feelings into words. Brain scans show verbal information almost immediately diminishes the power of those negative emotions, improving well-being and enhancing decision-making skills.
Think about it. Feel it. Write about it. Keeping a journal is not self-indulgent, it’s a great way to discharge negativity, which by definition has an immediate, positive impact.
Once you’ve mastered the self-awareness [step], your next goal should be to identify which aspects of the situation you have control over and which you don’t.
One of the biggest drivers of success is the belief that our behavior matters, that we have control over our future. Yet when our stresses and workloads seem to mount faster than our ability to keep up, feelings of control are often the first things to go, especially when we try to tackle too much at once. If, however, we first concentrate our efforts on small manageable goals, we regain the feeling of control so crucial to performance.
The point is to tease apart the stresses that we have to let go because they’re out of our hands, while at the same time identifying the areas where our efforts will have a real impact, so that we can then focus our energy accordingly.
Once my trainees are armed with a list of what is indeed still within their control, I have them identify one small goal they know they can quickly accomplish. By narrowing their scope of action, and focusing their energy and efforts, the likelihood of success increases.
Setting smaller, more manageable goals helps us build our confidence and celebrate our forward progress, and keeps us committed to the task at hand.
By first limiting the scope of our efforts, then watching those efforts have the intended effect, we accumulate the resources, knowledge, and confidence to expand the circle, gradually conquering a larger and larger area.
By tackling one small challenge at a time – a narrow circle that slowly expands outward – we can relearn that our actions do have a direct effect on our outcomes, that we are largely the masters of our own fates. With an increasingly internal locus of control and a greater confidence in our abilities, we can then expand our efforts outward.
Think small – it’s simple, accessible, high-leverage. Quick success creates fresh confidence. Before you know it, you’re ready to tackle the bigger issues. We’ll look at a couple of those starting next time.
The Colorado State Judicial Branch announced on Monday, April 21, 2014, that there is a vacancy on the Sedgwick County Court to be created by the resignation of Hon. Tawna Holmstedt, who was appointed to that position in February 2014. Her resignation is effective April 30, 2014.
Eligible applicants for the vacancy must be qualified electors of Sedgwick County and must have graduated high school or attained the equivalent of a high school education. The position is a 20 percent position, and the annual salary is $25,499.
Application forms are available on the State Judicial website and from the ex officio chair of the Thirteenth Judicial District Nominating Commission, Justice Gregory Hobbs. Applications must be received by 4 p.m. on Wednesday, May 21, 2014. Anyone wishing to nominate another person must do so by 4 p.m. on May 14, 2014. For more information on the nominating commission and the vacancy, click here.
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and four unpublished opinions.
Tatten v. Bank of America Corp.
On March 24, 2014, Rep. Paul Rosenthal and Sen. Lois Tochtrop introduced HB 14-1344 – Concerning the Use of Electronic Means to Document Transactions Related to the Business of Insurance. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.
The bill allows certain notices and other documents related to insurance coverage to be sent electronically to an e-mail address specified by the policyholder if the policyholder consents to receiving the documents electronically. Consent may be withdrawn at any time, reinstating the insurer’s obligation to provide the documents in hard copy form and deliver them personally or by regular mail as the case may be.
Access can be obtained using programs or applications that are widely available on the Internet and free to use.
The bill passed out of the House on April 14. It is assigned to the Business, Labor, & Technology Committee.
Since this summary, the bill passed out of the Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee unamended and is referred to the Consent Calendar for 2nd Reading.
On March 18, 2014, Rep. Dianne Primavera and Sen. Kevin Lundberg introduced HB 14-1323 – Concerning Restrictions on the Ability of a Government Entity to Access an Individual’s Personal Medical Information. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.
The bill prohibits the department of revenue from accessing an individual’s personal medical information or medical record without the individual’s consent. If a department employee authorizes the department, in its role as an employer, to access his or her personal medical information or medical record in connection with an employment-related request, occurrence, or claim, such as a request for a workplace accommodation or for family medical leave, the employee’s consent applies for the duration of the request, occurrence, or claim.
Any information that identifies or could be used to identify an individual patient or that indicates a patient’s diagnosis or treatment plan is redacted from the documentation.
Additionally, the department is not precluded from obtaining and using a written medical opinion in determining physical or mental fitness to operate a motor vehicle in accordance with procedures authorized by law.
The bill passed out of the House on April 14. It is assigned to the Senate Health & Human Services Committee.
On April 7, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to review a case that will be watched closely by the legal community. The issue before the court does not concern how cases are to be decided, nor how cases will be tried, but the authority of a trial court to control the discovery process that precedes trial.
The case, Antero Resources Corp., et al v. Strudley, case no. 13SC576, will address whether the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure permit trial courts to issue so-called Lone Pine orders that are sometimes used in large and complex personal injury cases often involving environmental contamination where there is some doubt that the plaintiffs can prove contamination and causation.
The case involves claims by a family alleging that nearby natural gas operations contaminated their well water, causing them medical harm. Prior to full-blown discovery, the phase of litigation in which parties demand records, conduct depositions and inspections, and otherwise gather information, the trial court required the family to submit evidence showing that their well was contaminated by pollutants from the defendants’ operations, that scientific research links the alleged contaminants to the maladies suffered by the family, and that the contaminants did cause such harm to the family.
After the family responded, the defendants argued that the materials submitted by the family did not meet the threshold showing required by the court’s order. The court agreed and dismissed the case. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court’s order was inconsistent with the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.
Questions related to pretrial discovery are enormously significant within the legal community because the cost of conducting discovery can be substantial. Defendants, such as the companies here, contend that the prospect of large discovery costs is often used as leverage to settle cases that are not meritorious. Conversely, plaintiffs and the Colorado Court of Appeals contend that the ordinary rules of civil procedure are sufficient to prevent such scenarios. Trial courts, charged with managing cases in a manner that protects the integrity of the judicial process, are caught in the middle.
The Colorado Defense Lawyers Association, the Colorado Civil Justice League and the American Petroleum Institute filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs urging the Colorado Supreme Court to review the court of appeals’ decision. Now that the court has agreed to address the issue, organizations on both sides of the issue are expected to participate.
Stuart Stuller focuses on appellate practice, litigation, constitutional law, employment discrimination and education law. He regularly appears before both state and federal appellate courts and has played a substantial role in more than 30 cases that resulted in published decisions. He can be reached at sstuller@celaw.com.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Wiseman on Tuesday, April 21, 2014.
Defendant Tina Patricia Wiseman pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone as part of a plea deal where she received two sentence reductions. The guideline range for her sentence was 57-71 months, but she received a sentence of 48 months. Wiseman filed a motion for a downward variance based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Wiseman did not contest the guideline range set forth in the PSR, but she argued for a sentence of probation with the opportunity to participate in a rehabilitative drug program. Wiseman urged the court to consider the sentencing disparity between her guideline range and similarly situated state court defendants, arguing repeatedly that the comparison was appropriate because cases like hers are typically prosecuted in state court. The central argument of Wiseman’s appeal was that the district court committed procedural error because it failed to consider § 3553(a)(6) when it stated it did not have authority to consider state-federal disparities. However, the district court analyzed § 3553(a)(6) and determined that a prison sentence was necessary because § 3553(a)(6) applies only when addressing sentencing disparities among and between federal defendants sentenced under the federal sentencing guideline regime.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence of the district court.
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and four unpublished opinions.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3553
 § 3553
 § 3553
 § 3553