For over 25 years, Rick has focused his practice on the defense of professionals in the healthcare, legal, and insurance fields. Rick has represented healthcare practitioners in fields as diverse as neurosurgery, internal medicine, dentistry, family practice, emergency medicine, podiatry, and chiropractic medicine as well as nursing and physical therapy. Rick not only defends healthcare providers in medical malpractice actions in state and federal court, but he also represents them in administrative proceedings brought by the various licensing boards.
Rick’s representation of attorneys has encompassed practices in areas such as estate planning, workers compensation, and personal injury. He has represented insurance professionals in errors and omissions cases arising from both personal and commercial lines.
In addition to his representation of professionals, Rick also maintains an active general liability defense practice, including claims arising out of serious auto and trucking accidents, complex premises liability matters and environmental claims alleging exposure to a number of supposedly toxic conditions. He has successfully tried many medical and legal malpractice, auto negligence, no-fault, premises liability, and mold cases utilizing the latest electronic media.
Cornelius v Emergency Doctor – Successfully defended an emergency room physician accused of negligently failing to treat an acute stroke patient. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict of no cause for action.
Malerbi v Internist – Successful defense of an internist accused of failing to timely diagnose and treat patient’s heart condition. After a two week trial, the jury returned a verdict of no negligence.
Collier v Podiatrist – Successfully defended the claim that the podiatrist negligently failed to diagnose and treat the patient’s broken foot resulting in Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy. After a three and a half week trial, the jury returned a verdict of no negligence.
Anderson v Attorney – Successfully defended a Workers Compensation attorney accused of negligently failing to preserve his client’s claim for first-party no-fault benefits. After a week-long trial, the jury returned a verdict of no negligence.
Yang v Urgent Care Center – Won motion for summary disposition in favor of client, an urgent care facility, in this medical malpractice case. The plaintiff’s husband was seen at the urgent care center and as part of the work-up there, received an x-ray. The x-ray was interpreted by an independent contractor radiologist. After plaintiff’s husband died, she sued alleging that a number of physicians and entities were negligent in failing to property diagnose her husband. The court dismissed the action as to the urgent care center, holding that the radiologist was neither the actual nor ostensible agent of the urgent care center.
Sheeran v Insurance Agency – Plaintiff landlord sued her insurance agent claiming that the agent should have sold her an “All-Perils” policy rather than a “Named Perils” policy and that the agency had negligently misrepresented to her that the cost of cleaning up the remains of a deceased tenant would be covered under her policy. After a three-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of no-cause for action finding that the agency was not negligent.
Juon v Home Health Agency – Obtained motion for summary disposition in favor of client, a home health care agency in this case alleging liability for a sexual assault committed by the agency’s former employee. Plaintiff had engaged the agency to provide nurses to care for plaintiff’s disabled son. One evening, after the nurse’s shift had ended and she had left for the day, the nurse returned and assaulted plaintiff. The nurse was later convicted of assault and the plaintiff sued the agency on a number of theories. The court dismissed the action on all theories.
Reese v Attorney – Plaintiff’s decedent was involved in an automobile accident and retained the defendant law firm to represent her. Because the decedent did not have a primary care physician, the firm provided her with the name of a clinic that would evaluate and treat her. After several weeks of treatment, plaintiff reported that she was no better and as such the firm provided her with the name of a pain management physician. During an epidural injection performed by the pain management doctor, the decedent’s spinal cord was injured which lead to paralysis and her death a few weeks after the injection. In addition to suing the doctor for medical malpractice (the malpractice case was settled) plaintiff sued the law firm and others claiming that the law firm participated in a conspiracy to send accident clients to these specific providers for unnecessary treatment. After lengthy discovery involving over twenty depositions, the trial court granted the law firm summary disposition finding that there was no evidence of a conspiracy or any other actionable malpractice.
DeVine v School District – Plaintiff filed suit against the School District alleging that the district was liable for the actions of one of its teachers whom had engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with the plaintiff. The trial court granted the School District’s motion for summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity and dismissed the suit in its entirety.
Publications & Speaking Engagements
Lectured to Oakland University Medical School Students on Issues Related to Medical Malpractice (October 2017)
Presents regularly on “Liability Issues in the Trucking Industry” to participants in the Wayne State University/Automotive Industry Action Group’s Supply Chain Management Certification Program
Selecting an Expert, Claims Magazine (August 2014)
Issues for MPL Writers (Interview), Best’s Review (September 2012)
Keeping Track of Malpractice, Michigan Medical Law Report (Summer 2012)
In Supervising Other Health Care Providers, The Duties and Liabilities are Many, Michigan Medical Law Report (Fall 2011)
You Are Your Brother’s Keeper, Medical Office Today (April 6, 2011)
On March 30, 2020, Governor Whitmer issued Executive Order 2020-30, which suspends certain scope-of-practice restrictions for a wide range of allied health professionals. The order lifts restrictions for certain health professionals who are working at their place of employment, are necessary to respond to the COVID-19 crisis, and are performing tasks appropriate to their education, training,…
Attorneys Richard A. Joslin and Lindsey A. Peck obtained summary disposition on behalf of a shopping mall owner in a serious personal injury case. The plaintiff was injured when an out-of-control car crashed into a mall store. In addition to suing the driver of the car, the plaintiff sued the store operator, the mall owner and the owner of a neighboring mall which shared the parking lot where the accident occurred. In granting summary disposition to the owner of the neighboring mall, the court held that the neighboring mall owed no duty to the plaintiff and that no duty arose from the easement agreement between the mall owner and its neighbor.
Attorney Richard A. Joslin won a motion for summary disposition in favor of his client, a home health care agency in this case alleging liability for a sexual assault committed by the agency’s former employee. Plaintiff had engaged the agency to provide nurses to care for plaintiff’s disabled son. One evening, after the nurse’s shift had ended and she had left for the day, the nurse returned and assaulted plaintiff. The nurse was later convicted of assault and the plaintiff sued the agency on a number of theories. The court dismissed the action on all theories.
Attorney Richard A. Joslin Obtains Trial Verdict of No Cause for Action — In the case of Sheeran v Insurance Agency, the plaintiff landlord discovered that a tenant had died in one of her apartments. The tenant had died at least two weeks before the body was discovered. The landlord hired a company to clean…
Attorneys Richard A. Joslin and Trent B. Collier Obtain Summary Disposition for Law Firm – In the case of Reese v Attorney, the plaintiff’s decedent was involved in an automobile accident and retained the defendant law firm to represent her. Because the decedent did not have a primary care physician, the firm provided her with…
On June 3, 2015, attorneys Richard A. Joslin and Michael J. Cook obtained a written opinion and order granting summary disposition in favor of their client, a school district. The plaintiff filed suit against the school district alleging that the district was liable for the actions of a teacher who had a consensual sexual relationship with…
Richard Joslin and Tanya Juarez-Lundberg’s article on “”Keeping Track of Malpractice”” appeared in the Summer 2012 Issue of Michigan Medical Law Report. The article addresses the question frequently posed by practitioners regarding the impact settlement will have on them. As discussed in the article, payments of money made as a result of a written complaint…
Collins Einhorn is pelased to announce that Richard Joslin has been named a Partner with the firm. For 20 years Rick has served as lead defense counsel in hundreds of cases in both state and federal court. The defense of health care professionals has served as a cornerstone of his practice – he has defended…
On November 23, 2011, Collins Einhorn attorney, Richard Joslin, obtained summary judgment on behalf of his (nurse) client, in a civil rights case in the United States District Court for the W.D. of Michigan. Rick represented a nurse practitioner who was in charge of medical care at the Benzie County jail. After an inmate committed…
CEFU Lawyers, Richard Joslin and Melissa Graves, co-authored an article in the Vol 7, No. 3, Fall 2011 issue of Michigan Medical Law Report. In the artice entitled “In Supervising other health care providers, the duties and liabilities are many,” Joslin and Graves explain that Michigan law requires that many non-physician health care provides be…
On April 6, 2011, Richard Joslin’s Article “You are Your Brother’s Keeper” was published in “Medical Office Today.” In the article, Rick states in part, that “as interactions between physicians and allied healthcare providers increase, it is incumbent upon physicians to understand what legal responsibility they may have for the care being provided by non-physician…