There has been a great deal of publicity in the medical community about apology programs ' programs that encourage doctors to affirmatively admit medical mistakes to patients and their families. While there is a lot of support for the idea, there is also a good deal of controversy over whether these programs actually work to reduce litigation and the cost of medical malpractice claims. What, realistically, can apology programs do ' and what can they not do?
July 31, 2007Linda S. CrawfordConfidential physician peer reviews may be disclosed to plaintiffs in federal discrimination and antitrust cases in three federal circuits, even though all 50 states and the District of Columbia recognize a privilege against disclosure of the performance ratings. This growing federal-state divergence will make federal courts more attractive to plaintiffs filing civil rights suits involving doctors, attorneys say. At the same time, it may have a chilling effect on peer review participant candor and on the ability of health care facilities to recruit peer review team members.
July 31, 2007Pamela A. MacLeanWhen a patient receives substandard care from a health care provider practicing telemedicine from a different state, the question is presented: Which state has jurisdiction over the transactions? The answer to this will depend on the two (or more) states involved and the circumstances of the case, but in the civil context it will generally come down to the usual questions of 'minimum contacts,' the parties' expectations, etc. What happens, though, when local prosecutors wants to hold a practitioner in another state criminally liable for practicing medicine within their state?
July 31, 2007Janice G. InmanHighlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
July 31, 2007ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
July 31, 2007Joshua G. GalanteRecent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
July 31, 2007ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Life insurance is a common issue addressed in a substantial proportion of divorces. For many clients, especially those of greater economic means, existing insurance coverage is owned by irrevocable life insurance trusts ('ILIT'). Existing ILIT arrangements too often receive inadequate attention during the course of a divorce as a result of the focus on other more significant issues, or the presumption that since the ILIT is 'irrevocable,' it cannot be tailored to address the post-divorce insurance needs. This can be a considerable mistake. In many cases, because it is assumed that an existing ILIT cannot be changed, the insurance requirements resulting from the divorce are separately addressed in a property settlement agreement ('PSA').
July 31, 2007Martin M. ShenkmanIn a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit revisited the thorny issues involving the doctrine of unconscionability and its application to arbitration agreements. In Davis v. O'Melveny & Myers, 485 F.3d 1066 (9th. Cir. 2007), the court relied on a number of relatively recent, and by now well-known, cases in finding that a mandatory arbitration provision in O'Melveny's employee dispute resolution materials was unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable.
July 31, 2007C. Griffith Towle
This button clears the current text from the Search Input field. Submit your search query.