• The law Offices of Kevin R. Madison just settled an Invasion of Privacy case in Dallas against a Perpetrator who attempted to take video recording of our Client partially undressed. Confidential 5 Digit settlement!

    We handle Invasion of Privacy cases, like this, throughout Texas, always on a percentage (contingency) fee basis. Never a retainer and never an hourly fee. If no recovery obtained, the client does not pay us a penny. All consultations are held in strictest of confidence and female nurse on staff. Telephone consultations available 7 days a week.

    Attorney Kevin R. Madison

    Tel (512) 708-1650

  • Suing Your Employer or High-Level Supervisor for Sexual Harassment

    Sexual Harassment occurs when an employer or supervisor makes continued unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or unwanted physical contact that is offensive or lewd. At The Law Offices of Kevin R. Madison, P.C. we vigorously pursue cases against employers and high-level supervisors who sexually harass employees. Mr. Madison has pursued business owners, doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers for sexually harassing their employees.

    Kevin R. Madison pursues sexual harassment cases against employers, business owners, and high-level supervisors using state laws that prohibit unwelcome touching (“assault by contact”) and outrageous conduct that causes serious emotional distress (“intentional infliction of emotional distress”), rather than using federal Equal Employment Opportunity laws that prohibit sexual harassment.

    In cases that involve groping, touching, or outrageous intentional lewd conduct, Mr. Madison pursues the predators using Texas statutes and causes of action recognized by Texas appellate courts (case law). Civil charges of Assault by Contact and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress are utilized to pursue those who sexually harass their employees.

    Some examples of illegal conduct by an employer or a high-level supervisor include:

    • Repeated unwelcome comments of a sexual or lewd nature to an employee
    • Sending lewd or pornographic emails, text messages, or voicemail to an employee
    • Unwelcome groping or touching of an employee
    • Unwelcome kissing of an employee
    • Sexual assault of an employee
    • Requesting sexual relations from an employee
    • Describing sexual fantasies about an employee to that employee
  • CIVIL TORT CLAIMS FOR PHYSICAL ASSAULT, SEXUAL ASSAULT & INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

    There is a movement across the United States to seek redress for assaults and sexual assaults in civil courts. Although we are all too familiar with the criminal justice system as a system of redress for victims of sexual assaults, many victims remain unaware that they may have a viable cause of action for monetary (money) damages against sexual predators in the civil justice court system. These civil actions are becoming more common in courts throughout the U.S.   I was the first attorney in Travis County to file a civil lawsuit against a rapist and obtained a judgment of 1.5 million dollars around 1987. My experience and training as a police officer, police chief, and prosecutor helped shaped my destiny as an advocate for victim rights in the civil justice system.

    Why file a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator of a sexual assault or the owner of the premises where a sexual assault took place? There are several answers to this question. I think, foremost, that by initiating civil litigation against a perpetrator, a crime victim can help regain her or his feelings or balance and control over their environment. Sexual and physical assaults can cause emotional scars that leave a victim feeling as if they have lost control of their lives. If a crime victim can get out of the “role” of “victim” they may be able to regain a feeling of independence and control over their own life again. This redemption or catharsis may be the most important of all reasons for pursuing civil litigation against a perpetrator.

    Other reasons for pursuing civil litigation against predators include, but are not limited to:

    (1) Exposing individuals who commit these crimes to the public through media coverage and press releases;

    (2) Seeking money damages to assist the victim in obtaining medical and psychological counseling;

    (3) Obtaining information about the predator or dangerous premises that may help law enforcement or criminal prosecutors prevent future attacks.

    Before one considers going down the path of civil litigation, a conference with an attorney who is well-versed in crime victim law and inadequate security litigation should occur. Beware of attorneys who advertise in the yellow pages or television who claim to be “experts” in personal injury and intentional injury (tort) law. Most attorneys who advertise on TV or in telephone directories have little or no network of former clients for referrals and practice a high-volume “mill” law practice.

    Crime victim cases and inadequate security cases are much different than automobile collision personal injury cases. Most lawyers are wholly unequipped to properly investigate these cases and do not understand how to prosecute these civil cases. They do not understand the nature of these cases, the elements of proving these cases, or how to utilize litigation “tactics” to win these cases. There are only a handful of lawyers in the United States who understand these cases. My background as a security supervisor of a 28 story co-ed college dormitory shopping mall complex (Dobie Center in Austin), 4 years street experience as a police officer, experience as a prosecutor, coupled with 25 years litigation experience and 18 years judicial experience give me a unique advantage over other attorneys in this area of law. I am also a licensed EMT-I and have served as a Firefighter/EMS First Responder for 5 years with Austin EMS. I understand the emotional and physical trauma that criminal predators inflict on their victims.

    What kind of cases might a crime victim be able to pursue?

    • DATE RAPE
    • SEXUAL ASSAULT BY KNOWN PERPETRATOR
    • SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND SEXUAL ABUSE BY DOCTOR, THERAPIST, OR CLERGY
    • SEXUAL ASSAULT BY UNKNOWN PERPETRATOR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY (PARKING GARAGE, SHOPPING MALL, NIGHTCLUB, APARTMENT COMPLEX)
    • INCEST
    • SEXUAL HARASSMENT WHICH INCLUDES UNWANTED TOUCHING

    An experienced attorney should be able to discuss statutes of limitations which bar civil lawsuits from being pursued if a plaintiff delays too long after the cause of action accrues. For example, a victim of a simple assault by touching has two years to bring her lawsuit against the perpetrator. More serious assaults even ones that cause death are limited to the two-year limitation period (See Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Sec. 16.003). The same limitation applies to a civil cause of action for “Intention Infliction of Emotional Distress” against a perpetrator. I use Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims when I am dealing with non-violent assaults like the office supervisor who is groping on his subordinate female employees and making lewd statements to them. I sued an Austin doctor using simple assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress for a young UT student who was being groped and harassed by this doctor, who employed her. The jury came back with a verdict of $15,000 actual mental anguish damages and a punitive damages award of $30,000 against the doctor.

    For Sexual Assaults and Aggravated Sexual Assaults the limitation period is extended to five (5) years (See Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Sec. 16.0045). These include sexual assaults of children and elderly, and sexual assaults where a deadly weapon is utilized or threatened. It is important to note that in all cases involving children that the limitation periods do not begin running until the child turns 18 years of age and becomes a legal adult.

    There are specific statutes that address Sexual Exploitation of a Patient by a Health Care Provider. Chapter 81 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code (TCPRC) addresses these crimes and provides some special damages, such as recovery of all attorneys’ fees for these victims, but it is important to note that the limitation period for these offenses is only three (3) years!  These cases include sexual assault and consensual sexual relations between therapist/doctor and patient and may include exploitation of former patients. TCPRC,   Chapter 81 defines Mental Health Service “Providers” as including: Licensed Social Workers, Chemical Dependency Counselors, Licensed Professional Counselors, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists, Clergy, Physicians, and Psychologists. These Providers are Liable to Patients and Former patients for damages for sexual exploitation if the patient or former patient suffers a physical, mental, or emotional injury caused by, resulting from, or arising out of:(a) Sexual Contact Between patient and Provider; (b) Sexual Exploitation of patient by Provider; or (c) Therapeutic Deception of patient by Provider. TCPRC, Section 81.005(a) states that: It is NOT a defense that the sexual exploitation of the patient or former patient occurred: (1) with the consent of the patient; (2) outside the therapy or treatment sessions; or (3)  off the premises regularly used by the mental health services provider for therapy or treatment.

    A civil judgment against a sexual or physical predator who intentionally (willfully and maliciously) assaults another cannot be discharged by a bankruptcy court. Title 11 of United States Code, Section 523(a)(6) states that a discharge normally allowed under the federal bankruptcy code (for civil judgments) does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt for a willful and malicious injury caused by the debtor.

    Unfortunately, the most important factor for an attorney when deciding whether to accept a crime victim case may hinge on whether the perpetrator has any significant assets. Without assets to seize, there is little point to justify the expense and time to pursue civil litigation against the perpetrator. When meeting with potential clients I discuss this matter fully with the client. Every case is different. There is never a charge to discuss a case at my law firm. All cases that are accepted are solely on a percentage fee of the total amount we are able to recover for our clients plus expenses. However, if we are unable to obtain a positive benefit for our clients, the client does not owe us a penny, not even our costs.  We have a female Registered Nurse for our women clients who are more comfortable discussing their case with another woman.

    Yours very truly,

    Attorney Kevin R. Madison

  • This is a huge victory for women who are assaulted or sexually assaulted by an employer! Under the previous law (Waffle House case) women who were victims of sexual assaults or physical assaults at work were forced to pursue their claims through EEOC administrative channels and had to get permission from the Texas Workforce Commission or EEOC to sue their employers (“Right To Sue” letter). Not anymore. This is an amazing victory for men and women in the workplace who are victims of sexual assaults by their supervisors.
    The background to his win in B.C. v. Steak N Shake is as follows, according to the high court’s decision:
    B.C., formerly an associate at the Frisco, Texas, Steak ‘n Shake restaurant, alleged she was sexually assaulted by her supervisor on company property in 2011.
    B.C. alleged her supervisor pushed her against a sink, grabbed her by the back of the head and pulled her toward him and tried to kiss her. She repeatedly told him to “no” and tried to push him away but was unable to escape. During a struggle, the supervisor unbuckled his pants, exposing his genitals to B.C. and later lost his balance allowing her to escape.
    Later that same day, B.C. and her mother reported the incident to Steak’n Shake and the police. After completing an internal investigation, Steak ‘n Shake was unable to confirm B.C.’s allegations and as a result, B.C.’s supervisor was not terminated, nor was he transferred to another location. The company offered for B.C. to return to work at any other Steak N Shake location, but she terminated her employment instead.
    B.C. later sued Steak’n Shake and her supervisor asserting assault, sexual assault, battery and negligence among other claims. Steak’n Shake moved to dismiss B.C.’s claims by arguing that the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), which governs sexual harassment claims controlled B.C.’s common law assault claims. Under that law’s statutory framework, a plaintiff must first receive permission from the state before filing an employment discrimination lawsuit.
    The TEXAS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS was established by the state legislature when the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act passed on June 26, 1983, authorizing the agency to enforce the law and handle complaints filed under the commission or under United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) when an employee alleges sexual discrimination by an employer.
    The trial court granted Steak ‘n Shake’s motion to dismiss, but did not explain its ruling. B.C. nonsuited her claims against the supervisor and only appealed the trial court’s ruling on her assault claim against Steak ‘n Shake.
    Dallas’ Fifth Court of Appeals later upheld the trial court’s ruling on the grounds that the TCHRA preempted B.C.’s assault claim. The Fifth Court held that under a 2010 Texas Supreme Court decision in Waffle House v. Williams that the TCHRA is the exclusive remedy for “workplace sexual harassment” and that to let her pursue the assault claim would circumvent the anti-harassment regime created by the state law.
    B.C. appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court arguing that the Fifth Court misapplied the Waffle House ruling to her case. But Steak N Shake argued that high court should apply their holding from Waffle House to B.C.’s assault claim because it could give rise to sexual harassment claim which is subject to the TCHRA’s authority.
    In a unanimous Feb. 24 decision, the Supreme Court held that B.C.’s claims were not preempted by the TCHRA and to rule otherwise would “muddle and obscure” the purpose of TCHRA which is designed to protect Texans who suffer from workplace harassment.
    There were significant differences between the Waffle House case, which involved repeated sexual harassment claims, and B.C.’s case which involved “a single violent assault,” wrote Justice Paul Green in a decision that reverses and remands the case back to the Fifth Court for rulings on other issues.
    “Moreover, were we to apply Waffle House here, we would effectively rule that any action by an employer, no matter how egregious or severe, is subject to the TCHRA’s administrative scheme so long as the conduct can be characterized as sexual harassment,” Green wrote. “Neither the TCHRA’s text nor its purpose, nor our prior holdings interpreting the statute, requires such an extreme result.”

  • Let me preface this posting with the fact that I am an EMT former First Responder, wife is RN, and father a physician and professor of medicine. WE all support doctors but do not support incompetent physicians who injure and kill innocent patients. Unfortunately in Texas the TEXAS STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS has a less than stellar track record of suspending grossly incompetent physicians. This must change!

    Anatomy of a Tragedy
    In late 2010, Dr. Christopher Duntsch came to Dallas to start a neurosurgery practice. By the time the Texas Medical Board revoked his license in June 2013, Duntsch had left two patients dead and four paralyzed in a series of botched surgeries. Physicians who complained about Duntsch to the Texas Medical Board and to the hospitals he worked at described his practice in superlative terms. They used phrases like “the worst surgeon I’ve ever seen.” One doctor I spoke with, brought in to repair one of Duntsch’s spinal fusion cases, remarked that it seemed Duntsch had learned everything perfectly just so he could do the opposite. Another doctor compared Duntsch to Hannibal Lecter three times in eight minutes.
    Saul Elbein, Texas Observer 08/29/2013
    Read Article: Texas Observer
  • A Baltimore Circuit Court judge ruled Monday that a lawsuit can go forward against Morgan State University that contends the school failed to protect Joshua Ceasar, who was brutally beaten last year by an electrical engineering student who previously showed signs of violence and mental instability. The student, Alexander Kinyua, 22, was later accused of murder and cannibalism in the death of a family friend.  Judge Videtta A. Brown found that there was potential for “foreseeability” on the part of the school that “something bad was going to happen,” said Steven D. Silverman, Caesar’s attorney.

  • DALLAS (AP) — Two women subjected to body cavity searches along a highway have settled their civil rights lawsuit against the Texas Department of Public Safety.The Dallas Morning News reports the $185,000 settlement was finalized Tuesday. A DPS statement Wednesday says an agreement was reached by all parties and the litigation has been settled.Last July’s search of 38-year-old Angel Dobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley Dobbs, by a female trooper was captured by patrol car video. Trooper Kelly Helleson allegedly used the same glove for both body searches. No drugs were found.Helleson, who was later fired, faces two counts of sexual assault and two counts of official oppression.

  • California – U.S. judge says victims’ bodies can prevent rape

    A Southern California judge is being publicly admonished for saying a rape victim “didn’t put up a fight” during her assault and that if someone doesn’t want sexual intercourse, the body “will not permit that to happen. The California Commission on Judicial Performance voted 10-0 to impose a public admonishment Thursday, saying Superior Court Judge Derek Johnson’s comments were inappropriate and a breach of judicial ethics.  See entire news article by clicking on USA hyperlink below:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/13/judge-women-rape-victims/1768673/

  • Texas Department of Insurance is considering a prohibition that would forbid Texas insurance companies from using MANDATORY ARBITRATION CLAUSES THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW YOU TO BRING A LAWSUIT AGAINST YOUR OWN INSURANCE CARRIER IF THEY VIOLATE TEXAS LAW OR INSURANCE CODE. PLEASE CONTACT THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TELL THEM YOU THAT YOU SUPPORT A PROHIBITION AGAINST MANDATORY ARBITRATION BY INSURANCE COMPANIES IN TEXAS 

    It would not be a good thing for Texas Insurance Companies to force consumers to BINDING ARBITRATION. If this prohibition against arbitration is not passed and insurance companies are allowed to use BINDING ARBITRATION CLAUSES IN ALL INSURANCE POLICIES – if you get in a dispute with your HEALTH, AUTO, LIFE, and HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE you will be forced to go to binding arbitration and you WILL LOSE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A JUDGE OR JURY DETERMINE WHETHER YOUR RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY AND IF THEY WERE TO DETERMINE YOUR LOSSES AND DAMAGES.

    TDI Press Release:

    Request for Informal Comments

    Relating to the Development of a Rule

    to Prohibit Pre-dispute Mandatory Binding Arbitration.

    Informal Comments Requested by Friday, November 16, 2012.

    The Texas Department of Insurance is considering a rule to prohibit pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration provisions in insurance products. The basis of the proposed prohibition is that pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration precludes covered persons from exercising substantive rights provided by the Insurance Code, including Chapters 541 and 542. The rule would apply to policy-or-contract coverages for individuals for personal noncommercial use. The prohibition would apply to group or individual forms providing coverage in life, accident and health, annuity, credit, and property and casualty products, including home and auto. The department invites your comments concerning substantive rights provided by statute and the protection of those rights. The information received will assist the department’s development of the rule. This is an informal posting and not a publication for rulemaking. To expedite the process, please submit comments electronically via email to the address below by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 16, 2012.

    Thank you for your interest and assistance in this process. Please contact the individual listed below if you have any questions:

    Nick Hoelscher

    Office of Policy Development Counsel

    Telephone: (512) 322-4316

    Fax: (512) 475-1843

  • Report: Decade-Long Review Shows Texas Supreme Court Is Activist, Ideological

    Court Watch—January 26th, 2012
    The Texas Supreme Court has a long history of favoring corporate defendants over families and small businesses, according to a decade-long review of the Court’s decision making by Court Watch, a project of the non-profit Texas Watch Foundation.

    Court Watch reviewed the 624 cases involving consumers decided by the Court between 2000 and 2010. The report, “Thumbs on the Scale: A Retrospective of the Texas Supreme Court, 2000-2010,” finds that the state’s high court for civil matters “has marched in lock-step to consistently and overwhelmingly reward corporate defendants and the government at the expense of Texas families.”

    “The Texas Supreme Court is an activist, results-oriented body that over the last 10 years has developed into a safe haven for corporate defendants at the expense of individuals, families, and small business owners,” said Alex Winslow, director of Court Watch. “The statistics speak for themselves. The court’s pro-defendant ideology can not be disputed.”

    Among the report’s findings are:

      • Corporate and government defendants prevail in an average of 74% of cases annually.
    • Consumers have lost 79% of cases in which they were pitted against a corporate or government defendant.

    These findings lead Court Watch to conclude: “The Texas Supreme Court has become a reliable friend to those who seek to escape the consequences of their actions; its justices are the ultimate guardians for the moneyed and powerful who wish to shirk responsibility.”

    The report focuses on the decade beginning in 2000 because it reflects a paradigm shift. In 2000, Rick Perry became governor. His appointees to the Court have taken it in a decidedly activist and ideological turn.

    • Justices appointed to the Court by Governor Rick Perry have sided with consumers an average of just 29% of the time.

    Despite a constitutional provision limiting its jurisdiction to questions of law – not fact – the Court has routinely overturned decisions made by local juries. Even Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson admonished the Court in a 2004 dissenting opinion, writing: “This Court is constitutionally bound to conduct only a legal – not factual – sufficiency review.”

    • Texas Supreme Court has overturned local jury decisions in consumer cases an average of 74% of the time since 2004.

    Court Watch writes that “The jury is our smallest, most direct, and least corrupted form of government. … However, the Texas Supreme Court has displayed a fundamental disregard for juries.”

    Court Watch has been monitoring and reporting on the Texas Supreme Court and the impact its decisions have on Texas families since 1996. During that time, Court Watch has issued an annual list of the most anti-consumer cases of a given year. In keeping with that tradition, this report includes a “Dirty Dozen of the Decade,” a representative sampling of the most dangerous, far-reaching decisions made by the Texas Supreme Court during the last decade.