Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Orthopedic Specialty Group, a 12-member group of physicians practicing in Connecticut, notified that state's trial lawyers in May that its members would no longer appear at depositions for the fees they'd charged in the past. This move, they said, was made in response to soaring malpractice insurance rates. In the letter, Dr. Robert A. Stanton told the attorney's his groups rates for deposition testimony would jump from the already high rate of $4000 for the first 2 hours and $1000 per hour thereafter to $12,000 per day spent in court. Most doctors in the area charge between $300 and $600 per hour for such services.
Some speculate the group's move is a response to the state legislature's failure in the last legislative session to pass the medical malpractice award caps sought by the medical profession. This theory is bolstered by Stanton's stated reason for the groups' rate increase: a doubling in its medical malpractice premiums as of July 1 of this year, which will add about $500,000 to its insurance bill. The letter noted that the group is willing to look at lowering its rates again if its insurance premiums decline in future and called on attorneys to help in this effort: 'Since you are in a unique position to facilitate change, we would appreciate your support in this matter.'
The letter may not be the last word in deposition fees for the group's members, however. Attorneys still have the option of subpoenaing a physician and asking the court to set a reasonable fee, and Connecticut's judges are unlikely to accept the Orthopedic Specialty Group's fee schedule as reasonable.
The Orthopedic Specialty Group, a 12-member group of physicians practicing in Connecticut, notified that state's trial lawyers in May that its members would no longer appear at depositions for the fees they'd charged in the past. This move, they said, was made in response to soaring malpractice insurance rates. In the letter, Dr. Robert A. Stanton told the attorney's his groups rates for deposition testimony would jump from the already high rate of $4000 for the first 2 hours and $1000 per hour thereafter to $12,000 per day spent in court. Most doctors in the area charge between $300 and $600 per hour for such services.
Some speculate the group's move is a response to the state legislature's failure in the last legislative session to pass the medical malpractice award caps sought by the medical profession. This theory is bolstered by Stanton's stated reason for the groups' rate increase: a doubling in its medical malpractice premiums as of July 1 of this year, which will add about $500,000 to its insurance bill. The letter noted that the group is willing to look at lowering its rates again if its insurance premiums decline in future and called on attorneys to help in this effort: 'Since you are in a unique position to facilitate change, we would appreciate your support in this matter.'
The letter may not be the last word in deposition fees for the group's members, however. Attorneys still have the option of subpoenaing a physician and asking the court to set a reasonable fee, and Connecticut's judges are unlikely to accept the Orthopedic Specialty Group's fee schedule as reasonable.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.