LJN Newsletters

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 Perna v. Pirozzi: '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.

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.

Who's doing what; who's going where.

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.

In the wake of a failed attempt to negotiate legislation for comprehensive U.S. immigration reform with Congress, the Bush Administration recently announced a series of 'regulatory' reforms to tighten immigration enforcement. Perhaps the most significant and controversial of those reforms is the Department of Homeland Security's new regulation addressing 'no-match' letters. Although the new regulation has been temporarily enjoined pending a hearing in federal court, employers should begin considering how they will comply with it if an injunction is not granted.

Legislation signed last month will allow New Jersey judges to restrict Internet access for convicted sex offenders and make it easier for law enforcement to monitor their online activity.