When physicians and hospitals find themselves defending a medical malpractice case that has been intertwined with product liability claims against a medical device manufacturer, these may seem like uncharted waters as compared with litigation solely involving multiple physician or hospital defendants. But the same general principle governs both scenarios: Defendants are likely to fare better when they hold hands and play nicely together for as long as possible and present a united front to plaintiffs.
A movement is slowly building to abolish century-old medical malpractice laws that judge a doctors' performance by the medical standards existing in his or her community. Those laws, known as 'locality rules,' are still on the books in 21 states.
Typically, health-care providers approach documentation with the goal of effectively communicating with themselves. The reality, however, is that depending upon many different circumstances, numerous other individuals may one day review a health-care provider's records for many different purposes and from many different perspectives.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
