Cooper & Scully Legal Update Newsletter

Legal News | June 25, 2026

Why Does My Dentist Insist on Taking My Blood Pressure?

By: Roger Berger

Short answer: Texas law requires it, so your dentist is conscientious regarding the rules.

The Texas Administrative Code sets forth requirements for dentists and their dental records. Among the requirements (taking and documenting) are vital signs, including, but not limited to, blood pressure and heart rate. 22 TAC §108.8(b)(4).

This provision refers the dentist to 22 TAC § 108.7, which sets forth the “standard of care” for dentists.1 This section of the Code does not specifically address vital signs but does include a provision requiring dentists to “perform and review a limited physical examination when a reasonable and prudent dentist would do so under the same or similar circumstances. At a minimum, a limited physical examination should be performed and reviewed annually.” 22 TAC § 108.7(4).

Attacking Unfounded Privilege Assertions in Depositions

By: Jillian Ginger

This article addresses misuses of the attorney-client privilege and ways to attack improper assertions of the privilege. The issue might be familiar to you: Plaintiff's family member or close friend must give deposition testimony based on their purported knowledge of Plaintiff's personal injuries, quality of life, mental health, or some other element of claimed damages. This witness is not a party to the lawsuit, is not actively pursuing any claims, and has alleged no injury, damages, or cause of action of their own from the subject incident.

As the deposition begins, inevitably, defense counsel asks some version of this question: “What did you do to prepare for today’s deposition?” followed shortly by “Did you speak with anyone to refresh your recollection?” In response, Plaintiff’s counsel objects to questions as violating the attorney-client privilege and tells the witness to not answer. Defense counsel challenges the objection, but what next? Either suspend the deposition to obtain a ruling, make note of it in on the record, or keep moving forward with the deposition because your client is paying you for the time spent. Unfortunately, neither option clarifies or fixes the issue or protects your client’s right to obtain testimony from an un-coached fact witness. What's a lawyer to do? Go on the offensive!

Read more here...

From Preemption to Ordinary Care: Broker Liability After Montgomery

By: Omar Azam

For years, freight brokers have invoked the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) as a powerful defense to state-law negligent-hiring and negligent-selection claims. The argument was straightforward: because a broker’s selection of a motor carrier relates to the broker’s transportation services, the claim is preempted by federal law. In some circuits, that defense ended broker-liability claims early, often before a single deposition took place. On May 14, 2026, however, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed that path.

In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 608 U.S. ___, 146 S. Ct. 1199 (2026), the Court unanimously held that a state-law negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception and, therefore, is not preempted. The decision resolved a circuit split (different federal appellate courts reaching different or opposite decisions) and shifts the focus of these cases away from threshold preemption motions and toward the merits of the broker’s carrier-selection process.