Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Analysis of a recent case in which a company, publicly accused by a plaintiff's lawyers of using non-FDA-approved medical devices, fought back by bringing a defamation suit against the opposing attorneys. The decision in the appeal offers some insights into what kinds of allegations may be publicized, and in what circumstances, when a product liability charge is brought.
Product liability law practice can get prickly, and why not? The stakes are high. Consumer injuries (or the potential threat of them) and the bad press that may follow can lead to lost business and even bankruptcy, and individuals’ careers and reputations can be ruined. It is no wonder, then, that those who find themselves on the receiving end of a product liability lawsuit and its attendant bad publicity sometimes fight back. So it was in a recent case in which a company, publicly accused by a plaintiff’s lawyers of using non-FDA-approved medical devices, fought back by bringing a defamation suit against the opposing attorneys. The case was thrown out by a California court, and the plaintiff appealed. The decision in the appeal, Healthsmart Pacific Inc. v. (Brian S.) Kabateck, 17 C.D.O.C 244 (C.A. 2d 12/19/16) (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Case No. B264300), offers some insights into what kinds of allegations may be publicized, and in what circumstances, when a product liability charge is brought.
*May exclude premium content
By Janice G. Inman
In a drug or medical device injury case, one of the defense’s most potent arguments is often that the product in question underwent FDA approval, so the balance of its safety and efficacy has already been determined. But when a device is approved for sale to the public through the FDA’s 510(k) process, the rigorous safety and efficacy analysis required of new and unique medical devices has not been undertaken.
By Kevin Quinley
For health care services to serve an influx of patients, so-called “physician extenders” now carry out functions previously performed by doctors. The aim of this article is to examine factors driving the growth in physician extenders, identify liability “hotspots” and offer tactics for health care providers to use in managing professional/medical liability risks.
By Mitch Warnock
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
Your paralyzed client currently has many problems to deal with, but the future holds many more. In order to advocate for your client, you need to gain an understanding of his or her current and future challenges, and work to maximize the resources your client will need to deal with them.
By Janice G. Inman
When an injury occurs, the first reaction of those in the medical office might be to ask, "Did the patient sign an informed consent form?" When the answer is "Yes," and the harm that occurred is listed as a possibility on that signed form, everyone can breathe a sigh of relief. Right? Not so fast.