Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
After defendants have established that their allegedly defamatory statements were made in furtherance of their right of free speech or petition under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue, the second thing that courts must question when a defendant seeks dismissal through an anti-SLAPP motion is whether the claimant has carried his burden of establishing a probability of success on the merits of his claim.
In last month’s newsletter, we began discussion of a defamation claim brought against two attorneys, Brian Kabateck and Robert Hutchinson, who took to the airwaves to publicize their client Mary Cavallieri’s complaints against a hospital and its owner, Michael D. Drobot. The defendants in that matter sought redress for what they claimed were untrue, and very unflattering, statements, but the attorneys moved for dismissal of Drobot’s claims in accordance with California’s anti-SLAPP (anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)). We continue herein with the court’s reasons for granting the attorneys’ motion.
*May exclude premium content
Exclusion of Evidence: The FDA’s 510(k) Process
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.
Physician Extenders or Liability Expanders?
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.
Paralysis Cases: Helping Your Client Cover Future Costs
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.
When Lack of Informed Consent Is Not the Issue
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.
Copyright © ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
