State Litigation Research Articles

Legal and Ethical Imperatives for Using Certified Sign Language Interpreters in Health Care Settings: How to "Do No Harm" When "It's (All) Greek" (Sign Language) to You.

Communication obstacles in health care settings adversely impact patient-practitioner interactions by impeding service efficiency, reducing mutual trust and satisfaction, or even endangering health outcomes. When interlocutors are separated by language, interpreters are required. The efficacy of interpreting, however, is constrained not just by interpreters' competence but also by health care providers' facility working with interpreters. Deaf individuals whose preferred form of communication is a signed language often encounter communicative barriers in health care settings. In those environments, signing Deaf people are entitled to equal communicative access via sign language interpreting services according to the Americans with Disabilities Act and Executive Order 13166, the Limited English Proficiency Initiative. Yet, litigation in states across the United States suggests that individual and institutional providers remain uncertain about their legal obligations to provide equal communicative access. This article discusses the legal and ethical imperatives for using professionally certified (vs. ad hoc) sign language interpreters in health care settings. First outlining the legal terrain governing provision of sign language interpreting services, the article then describes different types of "sign language" (e.g., American Sign Language vs. manually coded English) and different forms of "sign language interpreting" (e.g., interpretation vs. transliteration vs. translation; simultaneous vs. consecutive interpreting; individual vs. team interpreting). This is followed by reviews of the formal credentialing process and of specialized forms of sign language interpreting-that is, certified deaf interpreting, trilingual interpreting, and court interpreting. After discussing practical steps for contracting professional sign language interpreters and addressing ethical issues of confidentiality, this article concludes by offering suggestions for working more effectively with Deaf clients via professional sign language interpreters.

The Girard Will and Twin Landmarks of Supreme Court History

The Girard Will and Twin Landmarks of Supreme Court History STEVEN P. BROWN In June 2013, the trustees of Girard College announced drastic changes in the operations of the boarding school that had served the poor children ofPhiladelphia since 1848. Looming financial concerns, they said, necessitated the elimination of the school’s secondary education and boarding pro­ grams.1 While distressing to students and their families as well as to Girard’s staff, the announcement received relatively little notice outside of Pennsylvania. The school’s diffi­ culties were simply not that unique given the nationwide economic struggles wrought by the recession of2008, and there was little else about Girard to commend itselfto the national media. That, however, was not always the case. From its controversial founding as part of a bequest from one of the richest men ever to live in America, to its mission to care for the “poor, white, male” children of Philadelphia, Girard College has been the focal point of national attention before. Much ofthat interest derived from state and federal litigation involving the school, including two major Supreme Court decisions dealing with ques­ tions of religion and race. Arising out of the same bequest, but separated by more than a century, these rulings link the Taney and Warren Courts as well as the antebellum and civil rights eras. They also garnered for Girard College the distinction, as the New York Times put it (and with reference to the school’s Greek Revival design), as “a landmark of judicial as well as architectural history.”2 Stephen Girard Girard College owes its existence to a man named Stephen Girard who died seven­ teen years before the institution bearing his name first opened its doors. Bom in 1750 in France, Girard became a successful commer­ cial merchant in his mid-twenties, focusing on goods transported between the French 8 JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY colonial cities of Port-au-Prince and New Orleans. He later added a New OrleansNew York route to his commercial accounts. While making that run in May 1776, Girard’s ship was severely damaged in a storm and later intercepted by British cruisers that had been sent to blockade major port cities in the rebellious colonies. British officers searched the ship’s contents for contraband, impressed some of Girard’s men into the Royal Navy, and left the broken vessel and its undermanned crew to limp into the port of Philadelphia. Unable to return to his business immedi­ ately, but also sensing the possibility of wartime profits if he stayed in America, Girard temporarily abandoned the merchant trade to set up a small store to provide supplies to American troops. That, in turn, led Girard to a series of remarkably diverse and lucrative investments. Over the next fifty years, he turned his uncanny business acumen to road and bridge construction, land speculation, canal and railroad development, farming, insurance, ship-building, interna­ tional trade, and banking, among other things. It has been estimated that, at its peak and adjusted for inflation, Girard’s fortune exceeded $105 billion, making him one of the wealthiest Americans ever.3 With the notable exceptions of his valor­ ous service during Philadelphia’s devastating yellow fever epidemic of 1793 and his underwriting ofthe War of 1812, which saved the national government from bankruptcy, Girard generally kept to himself and to his businesses, leaving the residents ofhis adopted city of Philadelphia to speculate and gossip about the reclusive mogul in their midst. Although few knew him well, Philadelphians still grieved when their wealthiest citizen passed away on December 26, 1831. Those feelings of grief quickly turned to astonishment, however, both in Philadelphia and throughout the nation, when the contents of Stephen Girard’s will were made public. Girard had no living heirs and had made only minor provisions for distant relatives, the captains of his merchant ships, and a few others. He left the bulk of his fortune to the city of Philadelphia. Of that considerable amount, the will stipulated that the greatest proportion was to be used to create a “permanent college, with suitable outbuild­ ings, sufficiently spacious for the residence and accommodation of at least three hundred scholars, and the...

Federalism on trial: state attorneys general and national policymaking in contemporary America

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system,o Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1932, othat a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.o It is one of the features of federalism in our day, Paul Nolette counters, that these olaboratories of democracy,o under the guidance of state attorneys general, are more apt to be dictating national policy than conducting contained experiments. In Federalism on Trial , Nolette presents the first broadscale examination of the increasingly nationalized political activism of state attorneys general. Focusing on coordinated state litigation as a form of national policymaking, his book challenges common assumptions about the contemporary nature of American federalism. In the tobacco litigation of the 1990s, a number of state attorneys general managed to reshape one of AmericaAEs largest industriesuall without the involvement of Congress or the executive branch. This instance of prosecution as a form of regulation is just one case among many in the larger story of American state development. Federalism on Trial shows how new social policy regimes of the 1960s and 1970suadopting national objectives such as cleaner air, wider access to health care, and greater consumer protectionsupromoted both oadversarial legalismo and new forms of ocooperative federalismo that enhanced the powers and possibilities open to state attorneys general. Nolette traces this trenduas AGs took advantage of these new circumstances and opportunitiesuthrough case studies involving drug pricing, environmental policy, and health care reform. The result is the first full accountufarreaching and finely detaileduof how, rather than checking national power or creating productive dialogue between federal and state policymakers, the federalism exercised by state attorneys general frequently complicates national regulatory regimes and seeks both greater policy centralization and a more extensive reach of the American regulatory state.

Tobacco-control policies in tobacco-growing states: where tobacco was king.

POLICY POINTS: The tobacco companies prioritized blocking tobacco-control policies in tobacco-growing states and partnered with tobacco farmers to oppose tobacco-control policies. The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, which settled state litigation against the cigarette companies, the 2004 tobacco-quota buyout, and the companies' increasing use of foreign tobacco led to a rift between the companies and tobacco farmers. In 2003, the first comprehensive smoke-free local law was passed in a major tobacco-growing state, and there has been steady progress in the region since then. Health advocates should educate the public and policymakers on the changing reality in tobacco-growing states, notably the major reduction in the volume of tobacco produced. The 5 major tobacco-growing states (Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) are disproportionately affected by the tobacco epidemic, with higher rates of smoking and smoking-induced disease. These states also have fewer smoke-free laws and lower tobacco taxes, 2 evidence-based policies that reduce tobacco use. Historically, the tobacco farmers and hospitality associations allied with the tobacco companies to oppose these policies. This research is based on 5 detailed case studies of these states, which included key informant interviews, previously secret tobacco industry documents (available at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu), and media articles. This was supplemented with additional tobacco document and media searches specifically for this article. The tobacco companies were particularly concerned about blocking tobacco-control policies in the tobacco-growing states by promoting a pro-tobacco culture, beginning in the late 1960s. Nevertheless, since 2003, there has been rapid progress in the tobacco-growing states' passage of smoke-free laws. This progress came after the alliance between the tobacco companies and the tobacco farmers fractured and hospitality organizations stopped opposing smoke-free laws. In addition, infrastructure built by National Cancer Institute research projects (COMMIT and ASSIST) led to long-standing tobacco-control coalitions that capitalized on these changes. Although tobacco production has dramatically fallen in these states, pro-tobacco sentiment still hinders tobacco-control policies in the major tobacco-growing states. The environment has changed in the tobacco-growing states, following a fracture of the alliance between the tobacco companies and their former allies (tobacco growers and hospitality organizations). To continue this progress, health advocates should educate the public and policymakers on the changing reality in the tobacco-growing states, notably the great reduction in the number of tobacco farmers as well as in the volume of tobacco produced.

Regulating environmental responsibility for the multinational oil industry: continuing challenges for international law

AbstractStates utilise international law to create opportunities within global markets for private transnational economic actors, such as multinational oil companies, to invest and/or operate within foreign jurisdictions. However, there is a lack of directly enforceable international mechanisms against these private actors when they cause environmental damage abroad. International law responses to this problem range from the establishment of international compulsory compensation schemes, the proposed expansion of the doctrine of state responsibility to include liability for private actors, and more recently through litigation in the home states of multinational oil companies. However, both international jurisprudence and US, Dutch and British domestic case-law reveal an ambivalence towards holding such private transnational economic actors legally accountable in their home state jurisdictions for violations committed abroad. Certain states (the US and France) that have suffered environmental damage from the activities of multinational oil companies have responded by reasserting their domestic regulatory powers to require immediate clean up and compensation, prior to domestic judicial litigation. Other states (Nigeria) are unable to achieve the same level of effective enforcement due to their weaker political and economic bargaining positions.

State Law Litigation of International Norms: Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions

For decades, scholars of international litigation focused their attention on the federal courts. The combination of diversity, alienage, federal question and Alien Tort Statute (ATS) jurisdiction largely justified this focus, opening multiple avenues for litigants to prosecute claims in federal courts. In recent years, however, the federal courts have closed some doors to international litigation. In response, international litigators have turned their gaze to state courts. This panel is but one example of this new direction. For an excellent earlier treatment of this topic, the U.C. Irvine Law Review published a symposium issue in 2013 dedicated to human rights litigation in state courts and under state law.Within this new domain of U.S. states and international law, the focus justifiably has been on causes of action derived from common-law sources (whether in state or federal courts): (i) state law; (ii) foreign law, through state choice of law rules, and (iii) international law, also through state choice of law. What unites these categories is that courts are responsible for the relevant lawmaking choices. But state political branches also can engage with international norms. Examining the current and potential roles for state political branches permits an examination of doctrinal and theoretical questions in state litigation. First, I will offer some examples (real and hypothetical) of state political branch involvement. Then I will discuss two sets of inquiries in these cases: vertical debates about federal versus state actors, and horizontal debates about courts versus political branches. Third, I will discuss federal court doctrines that could limit state-level litigation, but I will do so in light of these horizontal and vertical dimensions. Finally, I will comment briefly on how state political branch involvement could play out with respect to the litigation of international norms.

Collective Redress in Environmental Matters in the EU: A Role Model or a ‘Problem Child’?

The issue of collective redress in the European Union (EU) has been gaining increasing attention thanks to recent initiatives on the part of the European Institutions. European action in the field of collective litigation in competition and consumer matters is, however, still at an early stage of development. In environmental matters, however, while not primarily EU-driven, there is already a well-established framework of collective litigation established by the Aarhus Convention. The subject matter of this article is whether the mechanisms of collective redress envisaged by this international Convention are working within the EU legal system as they should. After providing some background on the special features of environmental law (which affect their enforcement modalities) and an overview of the mechanisms of collective litigation in the Member States, this article will contextualize the issue of collective redress in environmental matters in the framework of the Aarhus Convention, and will explore the current obstacles faced in the enforcement of EU environmental law before national courts. This analysis provides some ground to draw a conclusion as to whether the current system of collective redress in environmental matters can be regarded as a model for the current debate on this topic for competition and consumer issues.

Transparency as a remedy against racketeering: preventing and restraining fraud by exposing Big Tobacco's dirty secrets

The 1990s state litigation that resulted in the tobacco industry's initial document disclosure obligations fully expired in 2010. These obligations have been extended and enhanced until 2021 through a federal...

State Litigation during the Obama Administration: Diverging Agendas in an Era of Polarized Politics

Throughout the Obama Administration, state attorneys general (AGs) have collaborated on several high-profile political issues. To get a fuller picture of this contemporary AG activism, this article analyzes AG participation in lawsuits and amicus curiae briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court across three presidential administrations. The results suggest that AGs’agendas have increasingly diverged throughout the Obama Administration, reflecting greater vertical conflict between AGs and the federal government as well as horizontal conflict among AGs themselves. Several factors have contributed to this development, including the broader polarization of American politics, intensified activism among Republican AGs, and increased collaborations between AGs and ideological interest groups. Much as with partisan contestation in other venues, these AG conflicts show few signs of abating. Since President Obama took office in 2009, state attorneys general (AGs) have been among the administration’s most persistent foes. Most famously, several AGs initiated legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) only minutes after the president signed it into law, an effort that led to the Supreme Court limiting the ACA’s Medicaid expansion (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [2012]). The ACA litigation was the most prominent state legal challenge to the Obama Administration, but it has been far from the only one. By the end of Obama’s first term in office, Republican AGs had filed over seventy lawsuits challenging the administration’s policies. Texas AG Greg Abbott, who only half-jokingly described his average day as ‘‘I go to the office. I sue the federal government. And then I go home,’’ has himself led twenty-four lawsuits against the Obama Administration at a cost of over $2.5 million and thousands of hours of staff time (Monro 2012; Weissert 2012; Fernandez 2013). Meanwhile, the federal Department of Justice has tangled with its state counterparts

Collective Redress: A Breakthrough or a Damp Sqibb?

In June 2013, the European Commission issued its long-awaited policy on collective redress. The proposal is in fact about collective actions and omits a holistic assessment of other options for redress. The proposal is a Recommendation not a proposed legislation. A related proposed Directive on competition damages does not mention collective actions. The proposed framework is not a model as too many aspects remain subject to national rules and contexts. Empirical evidence from collective actions in Member States suggests that this does not herald a new dawn for litigation or redress, although it may fuel more litigation in some Member States and thus forum shopping. In threatening to introduce legislation unless Member States introduce collective actions for all types of claim, the Commission opposes the majority of the Council and seems to have overplayed its hand.

Organ and Tissue Retention

Few legal challenges have had the potential to disrupt the functions of medical examiner and coroner offices as much as those related to organ and tissue retention. Typically a routine part of the autopsy process, blood and tissue samples are submitted for toxicologic testing, microscopic examination, and/or retained for consultation with specialists. Despite being governed by state laws, most state statutes do not specifically address the issue of organ and tissue retention. This oversight has allowed for variability in the interpretation of the rights of the legal next of kin, opening the doors to litigation. This article reviews the legal implications associated with organ and tissue retention, summarizes the litigation in the United States and other countries, discusses the subsequent changes in practice that have occurred, and the need for support from state and national organizations.

Climate Change and the Public Trust Doctrine

The public trust doctrine, an ancient canon rooted in Roman law and long recognized in Anglo-American jurisprudence, has been invoked in recent state and federal court litigation and citizen administrative actions that seek to compel the federal and state governments to confront the threat of climate change. The plaintiffs in these “Atmospheric Trust Litigation” (ATL) cases are young people who assert that a climate crisis exists and that their futures and those of succeeding generations are in jeopardy because of the failure of the federal and state governments to act expeditiously to protect the earth's atmosphere from the adverse impacts of climate-changing carbon emissions. In this commentary, I discuss the history and evolution of the public trust doctrine and efforts of concerned citizens to use it to move governments to address the crisis in a comprehensive, meaningful manner.

Dynamics of Patent Precedent and Enforcement: An Introduction to the UGA Patent Litigation Datafile

This paper describes a data set built to analyze patent litigation in the United States during 1929-2006. The data include all patents in published district court and appellate court decisions in which validity and/or infringement are at issue. We collect numerous patentspecific variables and litigation-specific variables for these patents. The data also include a set of random patents matched to the litigated patents by issue date and technology. We discuss the characteristics of the data, present some descriptive statistics, and describe research using the data.

Reforming Public Pay and Benefits

State and local governments are grappling with huge unfunded liability costs centered on public sector pensions and other postretirement benefits (OPEBs). Payments to cover these liabilities are crowding out revenues for essential public services. The policies and practices that determine public sector pay and benefits have become a significant part of the national conversation in the United States and Europe. This article provides commentary and a summary of a book addressing this topic: Rethinking Public Sector Compensation: What Ever Happened To The Public Interest? Recent national reforms on public pay and benefits are documented as well as the subsequent legal challenges that have emerged in several jurisdictions. The article conclusion is that it is imperative that these unfunded liabilities be addressed in a timely, comprehensive and fair manner, and that public sector compensation must be sustainable and reflect the reality of a new emerging workforce. However, the outcome from current litigation in several states will either significantly expand or restrict the ability to manage these public retirement plans.

The Rebirth of Federal Takings Review? The Courts' 'Prudential' Answer to Williamson County's Flawed State Litigation Ripeness Requirement

This article addresses recent developments in the law of takings arising from the courts’ application of the rule, articulated in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 185 (1985), that a property owner must sue for damages in state court to ripen a Fifth Amendment takings claim. The article reviews the confusion and inequity caused by this “state litigation” ripeness rule, and the Supreme Court’s and lower federal courts’ recent attempts to weaken the rule, so as to allow some takings claimants to litigate in federal court. Williamson County’s state litigation ripeness doctrine requires property owners to litigate for just compensation in state court before they can file a federal takings claim in federal court. But in practice, this rule interacts with other jurisdictional principles, such as federal claim and issue preclusion, in a manner that bars property owners from raising state-court ripened takings claims in federal court. As a result, plaintiffs must file their Fifth Amendment takings claims in state court. Yet, this opens the door for defendants to leverage removal principles and Williamson County to entirely deprive a takings plaintiff of any judicial forum for their case. If a defendant removes a state court takings case to federal court, it prevents the plaintiff from litigating in state court - the only available forum under Williamson County - and brings the removed claim to the federal forum in an unripe state; i.e., prior to full exhaustion of state court litigation. Federal courts often dismiss such removed takings cases, leaving the plaintiff without access to the courts for their Fifth Amendment takings claim. The article explains that these problems arise from a jurisdictional understanding of the state litigation rule and that the Supreme Court has abandoned this view. The Court has transformed the state litigation rule from a strict jurisdictional rule into a discretionary ripeness concept. The article highlights how federal courts are using the new, conception of Williamson County to decline to require state litigation for takings ripeness and defends this approach. It concludes that the courts' application of Williamson County as a discretionary, prudential ripeness doctrine provides them with a basis to spare takings plaintiffs from the worst injustices of the state litigation rule until the Supreme Court finally puts this rule where it belongs: in the waste pile of failed constitutional doctrines.

Thirty-Seven and Counting: How Has AEFP Evolved from Its Origins?

It has been a busy time for the Association of Education Finance and Policy (AEFP). Over the past few years the association has acquired a new name, a new journal, and many new members. The 2012 annual conference, convened in Boston last March, proved to be the largest conference in the association’s thirty-seven-year history, with 556 members in attendance. The theme, selected by incoming president Deborah Cunningham, was “Education Finance, Policy, and Practice: The Role of Evidence in a Dynamic World,” which underscores the contemporary challenge to the association: how to apply an increasing abundance of information and sophisticated analytical tools to produce the evidence needed to guide decision making by educational policy makers and practitioners. The Boston meeting was notable not only for the number in attendance. The unique qualities and strengths of the association were in clear display: papers of unusual methodological rigor; an interdisciplinary mix of academics from the social sciences, public policy schools, and colleges of education; educational finance professionals, policy analysts, and practitioners, a mix rarely found in the same place; and sessions addressing today’s hot topics as well as issues that have endured over the years. Having said this, all indications are that AEFP is what it has always been: a small, diverse group of people tackling some really big problems. Of particular note was a trend that has been growing for years but has clearly come into full flower: the large

Hearing loss resulting in malpractice litigation: What physicians need to know

To evaluate the relationship between hearing loss and malpractice litigation. Retrospective study evaluating state and federal civil malpractice litigation pertaining to physician treatment and patient hearing loss in the United States during a 10-year period (2001-2011). A Westlaw search of the computer database Jury Verdicts-All for 2001-2011 was performed using the search terms "hearing loss" and "malpractice." This database includes jury verdicts, judgments, and settlements. Niney-four cases were analyzed. There were 53 verdicts favorable for the defense (56%), 28 verdicts favorable for the plaintiff (30%), and 12 settlements. One case resulted in a mistrial. Settlements ranged from $42,500 to $12,500,000, and verdicts ranged from $0 to $8,784,000. The average payout for adult plaintiffs was less ($549,157) than the payout for minors ($1,349,121). The average payout for a surgical case was $579,098, compared to $960,048 for medical etiology of hearing loss. Otolaryngologists were the most frequently sued treating physician for hearing loss; the second most common defendant was pediatricians (eight cases). In the 13 cases in which an otolaryngologist was sued, there were nine defense verdicts and four verdicts in plaintiffs' favor. The average indemnity for an otolaryngologist was $313,230. Otolaryngologists are successful in most (70%) hearing loss litigation brought against them. This is true regardless of whether the allegations are of medical error or include operative procedures. Pediatric patients received more favorable jury verdicts when litigating malpractice claims than their adult counterparts, and the payouts were highest when there was alleged birth trauma and/or meningitis. Finally, the severity and degree of hearing loss sustained correlate with higher payouts.

More on Mortgage Transfer Mysteries

Predatory mortgage lending issues appear to have died down momentarily, at least as far as reported state and federal appellate litigation indicates, but questions about the transfers of those mortgages in the secondary market seem to be growing markedly. Three issues ago, I wrote on Aceves v U.S. Bank (2011) 192 CA4th 218, 120 CR3d 507, where one of the issues was whether the new trustee had been properly substituted in by the new lender. See Mixed Messages on Mortgage Foreclosures, 34 CEB RPLR 54 (Mar. 2011). Then, two issues ago, I covered Gomes v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 CA4th 1149, 121 CR3d 819, which held that our statutory provisions permitting trustee sales to be conducted by “any authorized agent” of the beneficiary eliminate most debtor challenges as to how the loan documents got to the foreclosing party. See Challenges to California Foreclosures Based on MERS Transfers, 34 CEB RPLR 87 (May 2011). Then, last issue, I commented on Ferguson v Avelo Mortgage, LLC (2011) 195 CA4th 1618, 126 CR3d 586, which—indirectly—upheld the effectiveness of a transfer through MERS although it involved only the deed of trust and not the note. See The Editor’s Take, 34 CEB RPLR 143 (July 2011). Now, in this issue, there are three more cases involving those issues. What keeps the topic from being monotonous is that the rulings are always new and different—and often scary.

A Great Game: The Dynamics of State Competition and Litigation

We provide a multi-dimensional picture of jurisdictional competition for corporate litigation by examining merger litigation in a hand-collected sample of 1,117 takeovers from 2005-2011. We find that entrepreneurial plaintiffs’ attorneys drive this competition by bringing suits in jurisdictions which have previously awarded more favorable judgments and higher fees and by avoiding unfavorable jurisdictions. States with an apparent interest in attracting corporate litigation respond in-kind by adjusting judgments and awards to re-attract litigation. These states award higher attorneys’ fees and dismiss fewer cases when attorneys have been migrating to other jurisdictions. Our findings illuminate the dynamics and existence of jurisdictional competition for corporate litigation.

Social Networking and Workers’ Compensation Law at the Crossroads

Over the past decade, social networking has increasingly influenced the practice of both civil and criminal law. One way to illustrate those influences is to examine a “system” of laws and the parties and lawyers in that system. In this article, we examine how social networking has influenced workers’ compensation law, looking at, in particular, the intersection of professional responsibility, discovery, privacy, and evidence with social networking in state workers’ compensation systems. Workers’ compensation laws are no-fault insurance systems designed to resolve disputes efficiently. Consequently, the rules of evidence are often more relaxed and the rules of discovery often more restricted than in state and federal court litigation. The flexible and self-contained structure of workers’ compensation systems provides an ideal backdrop against which to examine how information from social networking sites can be used as evidence to resolve civil disputes. A state’s workers’ compensation system should use the rules that have traditionally applied to non-electronic information as a starting point to address issues arising from lawyers gathering and introducing into evidence information stored on social networking sites. At the same time, because of the efficiency of workers’ compensation law and the large discretion vested in its judges, workers’ compensation systems have the potential to be laboratories for new technologies and how they can be used in the resolution of disputes, both inside and outside of workers’ compensation.