Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
There is a sense of finality when the dissolution decree is entered with the court. Those who practice a steady diet of family law realize, however, that entry of the decree means the divorce process is over for the client, but the attorney is not yet done with the case.
Features
Medical battery is generally defined as a touching that the patient has not consented to. This occurs when the care provider steps far outside the agreed-upon scope of treatment or, more infrequently, omits to obtain any consent to treatment at all. The New Jersey Supreme Court defined the concept in <i>Perna v. Pirozzi</i>: 'If the claim is characterized as a failure to obtain informed consent, the operation may constitute an act of medical malpractice; if, however, it is viewed as a failure to obtain any consent, it is better classified as a battery.'
Internet telemedicine is plagued by concern for patients whose physicians prescribe medication without a face-to-face examination. Consequently, state boards of medical examiners and state legislatures throughout the country have initiated disciplinary hearings and legislation to limit a physician's ability to practice medicine without prior hands-on contact with a patient.
Features
Legally speaking, a cause of action for a physician's failure to disclose a financial relationship with a drug company or medical device manufacturer may take the form of a medical malpractice case for lack of informed consent or breach of fiduciary duty. This article discusses what physicians can do.
Features
Part One of this article began a discussion of the dramatic increase in cases alleging caregiver discrimination. Part Two herein discusses the most recent cases and guidelines involving this area of the law, and how employers can best protect themselves, given the explosion of family responsibility discrimination (FRD) cases and the open issues that could further impact the number of FRD filings.
On Nov. 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Gattuso v. Harte-Hanke Shoppers, Inc., S139555, confirming an employer's ability to satisfy its obligation under Labor Code ' 2802 to reimburse employees for all their business expenses with additional income. This article provides an analysis of the ruling.