Litigation

Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

While most physicians today have yet to make the leap into using electronic health records (EHR), more and more physicians are implementing EHR technology in their practices. As a result, physicians and their counsel are now confronting the various hurdles relating to e-discovery in their defense of medical malpractice claims.

The classic vicarious liability claim goes something like this: The patient is referred to the local hospital, receives treatment from a physician who is not an employee of the hospital, and now that an adverse outcome has arisen from the treatment, the patient brings a claim against both the physician and the hospital. The foundation of the vicarious liability claim is that the hospital has held out the physician as having 'apparent authority' to act as an agent of the hospital, thereby inducing a reasonable reliance by the patient on that agency. With this year's publication of the new Restatement of the Law (Third) of Agency (2006), there may be subtle changes in store in some courts' inquiry into this aspect of liability assignment; therefore, review of the case law as it now stands and analysis of the change in the Restatement are in order.

Fire cases, especially those involving appliances, present unique challenges because the lack of compelling physical evidence often permits ex-perts to give unreliable opinions concerning causation. Fire usually destroys evidence showing its cause, and many fire scenes contain multiple possible causes in the area of origin. Moreover, the area of origin can only be defined in the most general sense in most significant cases because there are no fire patterns indicating a specific point of origin. Many times, the likely area of origin is no smaller than a large portion of a particular room. Moreover, property owners are reluctant to reveal that they negligently started a fire, so they provide misleading information in some cases. In many fires, certain or even likely identification of any particular cause is simply not possible.

Music Industry Files 8000 New Infringement Lawsuits

Why we are publishing this important Special Issue.

On Dec. 1, 2006, new amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addressing discovery of electronically stored information will take effect unless Congress enacts legislation to reject, modify, or defer the amendments. The amendments to Rules 16, 26, 33, 34, 37, and 45, which were approved by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 12, 2006, attempt to bring the discovery rules up-to-date in an Information Age where the majority of new communication and information is now created, disseminated, and stored in electronic media.

One question that has been raised in pre-emption decisions is the degree of deference to be shown an agency's explicit statement that it intends certain failure-to-warn claims to be pre-empted. For example, in the pharmaceutical arena, the Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') through the Department of Justice ('DOJ') filed amicus briefs in several lawsuits to reiterate its position on pre-emption of state law tort claims. In these briefs, the United States stressed that in the context of warnings, 'more is not always better.' Amicus Brief for the United States, Kallas v. Pfizer, No. 04-00998 (D. Utah Sept. 29, 2005) at 28. The FDA's regulation of prescription drugs ensures each drug's optimal use by requiring inclusion of only scientifically substantiated warnings. Id. Plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims therefore 'stand as an obstacle' to the FDA's accomplishment of its congressionally mandated purpose of ensuring the public health and are therefore pre-empted. See Id. The FDA has also stated its position on pre-emption in the preamble to its Rulemaking for Labeling requirement, which became effective on June 30, 2006. See 21 C.F.R. '10.85(d)(1) (2006).