Attorney-at-Law

IS THERE A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE?

In Uncategorized on 10/16/2014 at 13:42

Maybe so Tax Court should have one or two MDs on call.

In furtherance and in explication of the foregoing, as my lamenting-the-collapse of -the-DJIA colleagues would put it, compare and contrast Ralph O. Lewis, Jr., Docket No. 16108-12S, filed 10/15/14, with Kenton Ridgeway Fleming, Docket No. 4925-12S, filed 10/16/14.

A brace of continuance motions in two-year-old small-claimers, so nothing very exciting, right?

Well, Ralph O., Jr., claims “…he has been hospitalized four times since January 2014, with the latest being on October 2, 2014, and is scheduled to have Bypass surgery. Attached to the motion, are Declarations of Tarciso C. Diaz, M.D., petitioner’s physician, and Tami Elan, petitioner’s former legal assistant.” Order, at p. 1.

The case, having been twice previously continued, is on for trial 10/27.

IRS apparently has a short fuse, and ripostes as follows: “(1) petitioner is an attorney and has failed to provide substantiation documents, (2) he has not communicated with respondent on the stipulation of facts and trial preparation, and (3) respondent objects to any further continuances in this case.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

Judge Nega: “The Court is sympathetic to petitioner’s situation. While such circumstances are sometimes a reason to continue a case, a continuance should be granted only if the passage of time will better enable the parties to try the case. In a circumstance like this, a continuance may have the disadvantage of making it only more difficult to assemble documents and witnesses to prove the facts pertinent to that year. Health problems is [sic] indeed an issue that the Court takes seriously, but of course it is not a reason to defer indefinitely the resolution of a case.” Order, at p. 2.

So, unless Judge Nega is as obliging as Judge Gustafson, and will try Ralph O., Jr.’s case in the recovery room, wheel ol’ Ralph O., Jr., in on a gurney, and let’s have a trial.

After all, who says attorneys have a heart, anyway?

But, for Judge Morrison at least, Kenton Ridgeway’s kidney trumps Ralph O., Jr.’s heart.

Judge Morrison: “Fleming informs the Court that since August 2014, he has been in considerable pain because of kidney stones. He also informs the Court that the medication prescribed by his doctor have [sic] created side effects that have made it impossible for him to go about his normal life. He further informs the Court that his mental faculties may be impaired. The circumstances warrant a continuance of the trial.” Order, at p. 1.

Now a Rule 91(f)(2) motion was granted, so there’s no jousting about facts here, a Standing Pretrial Order has been served, and there’s been one continuance already.

But this case is also on for trial next week.

To support his tale of woe, Kenton Ridgeway has no declarations from doctors, former legal assistants, or any one else. Moreover, IRS hasn’t tagged Kenton Ridgeway with the disparaging epithet of “attorney”.

So maybe there should be a doctor or two in the house at 400 Second Street, NW.

Footnote to the Foregoing

 Judge Nega is tougher at sick call than ol’ Sergeant Longry, late of dear old Tent City, Fort Jackson, South Carolina. Just as I was finishing the above, I stumbled upon Theodore L. Vallas & June D. Vallas, Docket No. 22105-12S, filed 10/16/14.

Here’s Ted’s story.

“Petitioners’ motion states that Mr. Vallas is involved in another legal matter, and that he is 93 years of age and only capable of focusing on only one of these matters at a time. Petitioners’ motion further states that respondent does not object to the granting of the motion.” Order, at p. 1.

Very politely, Judge Nega tells Ted to fall in and march. He omits certain colorful metaphors that ol’ Sarge would have bestowed.

“The Court is sympathetic to petitioners’ situation. While such circumstances are sometimes a reason to continue a case, a continuance should be granted only if the passage of time will better enable the parties to try the case. In a circumstance like this, a continuance may have the disadvantage of making it only more difficult to assemble documents and witnesses to prove the facts pertinent to that year.” Order, at p. 1.

Brings back memories.

 

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: