Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Hospital LIability for Medical Research Studies
Your hospital and physicians have the opportunity to conduct a study on a new method for the early detection of a disease. They go through the necessary procedures of obtaining patients at risk for the disease, and those patients knowingly agree to participate in the program. However, there may be one problem with this scenario. According to a recent case out of New York, your hospital and physicians may have just established a hospital-patient and/or physician-patient relationship with each of the study participants, exposing all of them to the risk of multiple medical malpractice lawsuits.
New York Case Causes Concern
This most recent case on the issue of hospital and physician liability for test-subject injury is Sosnoff v. Jackman, 845 NYS2d 391 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., 11/07/07). In Sosnoff, the plaintiff had a family history of ovarian cancer. In May 1996, she enrolled in a research study conducted at White Plains Hospital Center concerning early detection of ovarian cancer in patients with a family history of such cancer. As part of the research study protocol, Ms. Sosnoff reported to the hospital approximately every six months for five years for physical examinations performed by the doctors and for diagnostic tests, including ultrasounds and sonograms. Toward the end of the study, in February 2001, Ms. Sosnoff was diagnosed with Stage 3C uterine or endometrial cancer with involvement of the ovaries and lymph system. Ms. Sosnoff filed suit alleging that the hospital and two physicians who participated in conducting the study had negligently failed to diagnose her cancer in its earlier stages.
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.