Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Expert Witness Affirmation
In recent years, numerous professional medical associations, such as the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), the American Medical Association (AMA), and many others have taken on the 'hired gun' experts by promulgating expert witness guidelines and oaths of affirmation intended to self-regulate medical expert testimony in the courtroom. The guidelines and affirmations are typically part of larger professional conduct programs meant to improve the quality of expert witness testimony and increase the probability of equitable outcomes. American Academy of Pediatrics, Guidelines for Expert Witness Testimony in Medical Malpractice Litigation, available at www.pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/109/5/974.
As we have frequently heard, disciplinary action or membership revocation proceedings may ensue as a result of violations of these guidelines, and several lawsuits challenging the associations' authority in this regard have received widespread attention. See E. Frisch, Fight Over Policing of Expert Testimony Heats Up, Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy, Vol. 24, No. 1, Oct. 2006 (discussing In re Gary James Lustgarten, M.D., 629 S.E.2d 886 (N.C. App. 2006); Fullerton v. The Florida Med. Ass'n, Inc., ___ So.2d ___, 2006 WL 1888545 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 2006); Bundren v. Parriott, 2006 WL 1805867 (D.Kan. 2006)). The guidelines and affirmations, as well as the cases challenging them, certainly give rise to an interesting debate about the role of these voluntary medical associations in policing courtroom testimony. The more significant consequence to medical malpractice lawyers, however, is that these guidelines and affirmations have opened up a whole new fertile ground for impeachment of opposing experts.
The Theory
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.