Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Can Med-Mal Caps Be Bypassed?
As more and more states across the nation impose statutory caps on damages for non-economic injuries in medical malpractice cases, plaintiffs and their attorneys are seeing their options for compensation diminished. Attorneys are looking for ways to best help their injured clients, such as hurriedly filing claims before the imposition date of statutory caps and framing their cases as something other than medical malpractice. One such case was recently filed in Florida, in Palm Beach Circuit Court. The plaintiff, Julio Cordero, brought suit against the hospital at which he had surgery following a car accident.
The gist of the plaintiff's suit is this: As a Jehovah's Witness, Cordero is religiously opposed to blood transfusions and claims he refused to have one on religious grounds. Yet, at the hospital, Delray Medical Center, owned by hospital chain Tenet Healthcare Corp., plaintiff was administered a transfusion during his operation.
Cordero came to the hospital as the result of a highway accident. He was driving on Interstate 95 in May 2000 when his car broke down. While standing beside the broken-down car, he was hit by another car, the impact of which broke both his legs. Emergency personnel took him to Delray for treatment. At the medical center, Cordero alleges he was fully awake and lucid and that he told several hospital employees not to give him a blood transfusion. Hospital records seem to confirm his assertion that he was fully conscious, as he signed the consent for anesthesia, and tests given to Cordero on six occasions before he entered surgery indicated he was highly alert.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.