Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent happenings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
The U.S. Supreme Court in February tackled an issue that has come up frequently in lawsuits brought by plaintiffs claiming they've been injured by medical devices: Do the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 preempt state law-based claims against device manufacturers? The Court had partially answered the question in <i>Lohr v. Medtronic</i>, but the fact situation in that case did not necessarily make its decision applicable to other cases against medical devices manufacturers.
Last month, we discussed the fact that a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal explores the relationship between the doctrine of informed consent and the intentional tort of battery. The case was <i>Saxena v Goffney</i>. This is the conclusion of that discussion.
Features
Federal government attorneys recently unsuccessfully attempted to convince a Federal District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to rewrite the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act ('FTCA') to allow the creation of a reversionary trust rather than give a lump-sum award to pay for a medical malpractice plaintiff's future medical expenses.
Features
New Jersey's year-old Civil Union Act has failed so far to convey to registered same-sex couples the rights and privileges of marriage, a state commission reported on Feb. 18.
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Three decisions ' <i>Fortis Benefits v. Cantu,</i>; <i>Mid-Continent Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,</i>; and <i>Excess Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Frank's Crew & Rental Tools, Inc.</i> ' appear to reflect the Texas Supreme Court's view that courts applying Texas law should not read more into policies than what is expressly included. And, if there is an agreement apart from the insurance contract, the Texas Supreme Court will look for it to be in writing.
An Illinois appellate court recently held that a subcontractor's insurer wrongfully rejected a general contractor's tender of defense for a suit filed by the subcontractor's employee. <i>State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Habitat Constr. Co.</i>
