Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
Why we are publishing this important Special Issue.
Features
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.
Features
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.' <i>Amicus</i> Brief for the United States, <i>Kallas v. Pfizer</i>, 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. <i>Id.</i> 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. <i>See Id.</i> 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. <i>See</i> 21 C.F.R. '10.85(d)(1) (2006).
Features
Like most rights, the right to a jury trial can be waived. In general, commercial landlords disfavor jury trials, especially when the opposing party is an individual, finding the outcomes of such trials to be either too uncertain, or if consistent, consistently against the landlord's interest. The general perception is that juries tend to favor individuals in disputes against institutional parties as a way to rectify a perceived injustice that corporations and other institutions allegedly inflict on the public. Jury trials are also more costly than non-jury trials, and parties may waive their right to a jury trial to avoid the added expense.
Features
Leases keep getting longer and tougher. Unfortunately, sometimes the people drafting them outsmart themselves and include unenforceable provisions.