Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Because of Diligence/Discovery Rule, FTCA Claim Not Time-Barred
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has declined to dismiss a case brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. (FTCA) for failure to timely file, as the parents of the injured child had reason to believe that their daughter's problems developed in utero, and they were not put on notice until many years after discovering her injuries that they could have been caused by substandard medical care. A.E.F., an Infant v. USA, 13-CV-285, NYLJ 1202658095627, at *1 (WDNY, Decided May 30, 2014).
In this action for medical malpractice, a child was born via breach birth. She initially developed normally, but shortly before her second birthday her parents observed that she walked oddly. She was seen by several medical professionals, including a pediatrician, and was eventually diagnosed on June 12, 2007 by another doctor, Dr. Ferrick. The diagnosis was bilateral hip dysplasia and bilateral dislocated hips. Dr. Ferrick told the child's parents that these conditions likely developed in utero. In 2011, when the child's grandfather, who had hip problems of his own, suggested that her hip problems might have been the result of medical malpractice, the parents began pursuing the possibility of seeking compensation. Because the pediatrician and the hospital at which the child was treated were agents of the federal government, the child and her parents lodged a claim against the United States in 2012, in accordance with the FTCA.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?