Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Debate on Cardiac Stent Safety
During the late summer and early autumn of 2006, the medical community began to express second thoughts about the safety of drug-coated cardiac stents, which have in recent years been given credit for reducing the frequency of complications arising from the use of a previous generation of stents. The publicity generated by the news media interested me in my professional role representing health care providers, and for personal reasons as well. In June 1999, I underwent coronary angioplasty and stent placement to address a 95% blockage of one coronary artery. I have been closely monitored in semi-annual visits since that time, and I recently discussed with my cardiologist the evolving technology of drug-coated stents. Our discussion led me to research the procedure in general, and the recent evolution of cardiac stents in use within the United States and abroad.
History of the Cardiac Stent
The first coronary stent was inserted by Dr. Jacques Puel in Toulouse, France, in 1986. Dr. Puel's procedure had its origin in the use of angioplasty balloons by interventional cardiologists during the preceding decade. Although coronary arteries could be opened successfully using a balloon, the wall of the coronary artery occasionally weakened after balloon dilatation, and at times collapsed. To address this complication, stents ' metal tubes or 'scaffolds' ' were designed to be inserted following balloon angioplasty, usually threaded through the circulatory system, starting from a small incision in the thigh.
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.