Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practice Tip: Proper Treatment for Treating Physicians' Depositions
In many product liability cases, as well as other tort actions, deposition testimony of treating physicians raises several issues. Are treating physicians experts or fact witnesses?
FRCP 26 contemplates two types of experts; FRCP 26(a)(2)(A) requires that a party disclose the identity of any person who is going to testify as an expert at trial. The Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993 amendments of FRCP 26 provide that “the term 'expert' refers to those persons that will testify under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to scientific, technical, and other specialized matters.” FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) requires that any expert “retained or specially employed” must submit a written report for the adversary that contains all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor.
The requirement of a written report in paragraph (2)(B) applies only to those experts who are “retained or specially employed” to provide such testimony in the case. FRCP 26(b)(4)(C) governs the payment of a reasonable fee to experts for depositions, but does not distinguish between those persons who may give expert testimony pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2)(A) and those who have been specifically retained to provide expert testimony pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2)(B). So, are treating physicians “2A experts” or “2B experts” (requiring a report) and must they be paid for a deposition?
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.