LJN Newsletters

Documentation is an important part of medical care. Consultation notes, test results, physician orders and nursing observations all assist in ensuring continuity of care. In litigation, however, the significance of the written chart is often elevated from a tool for patient care to historical written account of past events. In this latter context, many in the medical community have advocated that if an event (an order, a consultation, a phone call, etc.) was not documented in the official patient record, it did not happen. Over time, this 'negative evidence' has been used to prove negligent omissions on the part of various care providers by showing that they failed to do something that they should have done, because if it had been done it would have been charted. The same 'lack of entry' evidence is also used to disprove (or create doubt) that an event testified to by a witness on the stand did not occur.

Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.

Part One of this series analyzed the consideration that leasing counsel should give to discovery, locale selection, confidentiality, and expediting the arbitration process. This month's installment discusses issues relating to arbitrator-selection.

One of the most pressing issues faced by any business, but especially those in the financial services industry, is the privacy and security of financial and other nonpublic information. This is the first in a series of three articles addressing some of the key issues surrounding corporate responsibility with respect to the privacy of information and security breaches. Whether public or private, small company or large, if you or your client are in possession of the personal information described below, the following series of articles is essential reading.

The primordial cornerstone of financing equipment lease receivables has been the ability of funding sources to rely on the enforceability of two related provisions contained in the underlying lease documentation:1) 'Hell or high water' clauses, where the lessee agrees that its payment obligations under the lease are 'absolute and unconditional' and are not subject to any defense, setoff, or counterclaim that the lessee may have against the lessor, its assignee, the manufacturer or seller of the equipment, or against any person for any reason whatsoever — essentially, it agrees to pay 'come hell or high water.'2) 'Waiver of defense' clauses, where the lessee 'agrees not to assert against an assignee' of the lease payments, any defenses, setoffs, or claims it may have against the lessor, as the original payee under the lease.

Although patent enforcement efforts have been historically dominated by the technology-elite, few businesses of the future will be exempt from the impact of patent infringement litigation. Indeed, data published by the USPTO and the federal judiciary reveal that the number of patent applications filed annually and the number of patent infringement litigations initiated annually have both more than doubled since 1990. Simply stated, business leaders of the future are increasingly likely to encounter one of two situations:1) The firm believes others are infringing its patents; or 2) Others accuse the firm of infringing their patents.

Nanotechnology financiers were biting their nails this past October as market forces were engaged by regulatory forces. In the same week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') held its first full public meeting on nanotechnology safety and environmental risk, and the Environmental Protection Agency ('EPA') placed a Notice of Rulemaking regarding nanotech product commercial release requirements in the Congressional Record. Investors see only risk — each of the two agencies has the power to shut down the evolving nanotechnology industry.

Most software licenses forbid transfer and modification of the licensed software. The General Public License ('GPL') is designed to ensure exactly the opposite — the freedom to modify and share software. According to the Free Software Foundation, the drafters of the GPL, all programs that are distributed under the GPL should be available to recipients to modify and distribute again. And any attempt to deny that freedom should be met with consequences, namely the loss of license rights under the GPL.