Given how large the awards are when there is a verdict against a physician, many in the medical profession and their defense teams have come to believe that juries are random and unfair. The conventional wisdom seems to be that judge-made decisions are a safer bet for med-mal defendants. Is this true?
Courts have historically been divided over several key elements with respect to what a plaintiff must prove to support a claim for medical monitoring. In this article, we review recent decisions regarding medical monitoring and assess whether there has been any consensus among the courts as to whether an actual, present physical injury is required to support a medical monitoring claim and whether class certification is appropriate for medical monitoring claims.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
In a little-noticed paragraph of the significant decision in Wissink v. Wissink, 301 AD2d 36 (2d Dept. 2002), the court held that evidence of certain economically abusive behavior was relevant in a custody case and should not be excluded. This is a very important holding that should be examined by judges and attorneys and applied in other cases.
Important rulings in neighboring states.
An admission ' an act or declaration of a party or his agent that constitutes evidence against the party at trial ' is an exception to the rule against hearsay. As a general rule, any declaration or conduct of a party or his agent, oral or written, that is inconsistent with that party's position at trial is admissible at trial as an admission.
A new U.S. Food and Drug Administration final rule governing clinical trials held in foreign countries will spark painstaking legal review of pharmaceutical companies' protocols for trials.
A recent decision by a New York appellate court may have converted New York into a community property state. Johnson v. Chapin, 350749/01, NYLJ March 17, 2008, p. 25 col. 1.
Justice is served best when both parties have all the information they need to support their position. Consequently, in the author's opinion, attorneys should be able to review psychological test data. He supports that right for several reasons discussed in the article.
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc. had long been anticipated by the litigation and arbitration communities and has been the subject of extensive commentary and debate in the brief period since it was rendered. This article explains why.
