Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Anti-SLAPP Statutes and Peer Review
Hospitals trying to assemble a peer review committee to review another practitioner's record and perhaps impose sanctions for substandard performance have their jobs cut out for them because physicians are often reluctant to pass judgment on a colleague. In addition to this natural reticence, those who sit on or testify at a peer review proceeding have another reason to want to avoid it: the threat of lawsuits brought by the medical practitioner facing discipline. The scope of the problem is obvious: without willing and honest participants, the peer-review system that helps keep patients safe is compromised.
In recent years, a small number of people sued by disgruntled medical practitioners for statements made before hospital peer review and state licensing boards have attempted to scuttle those suits by using state-law anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes. SLAPP suits are, by definition, meritless suits brought not to win, but to use the litigation to deter, intimidate or punish citizens who either will or have reported violations of law, written to government officials or testified before governmental bodies. Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp., 427 Mass. 156 (1998). Anti-SLAPP legislation has been passed in several states, including California, Delaware, Georgia, New York, Minnesota, Ten-nessee and others. Can this legislation help participants in peer review and other medical competence proceedings when the person who was the subject of the proceeding cries 'Defamation!' or 'Interference with contractual relations?' The law is developing, and some recent decisions show that the answer to that question is still open to interpretation.
Massachusetts Says 'No'
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.