Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
For the second time in less than a decade, a report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) was released in July. The previous IOM report on the subject, released in 1999 and titled, 'To Err Is Human,' rocked the medical community when it estimated that 44,000-98,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors. Similarly, the report released in July documents significant shortcomings in the provision of medical services in this country and startlingly points out that medication errors continue to harm at least 1.5 million people every year. According to the new report, the problem is so serious that, on the average, a hospital patient is subject to at least one medication error per day. The IOM estimates that the additional costs of treating medication-related injuries ' those occurring in hospitals alone ' can conservatively be estimated at $3.5 billion per year. At least one quarter of all such injuries are apparently preventable.
You have a big trial looming; let's say an infant death or quadriplegia case. You think the medicine is sound, your experts are comfortable with their positions and the client wants to go forward. At the same time, the injuries to the plaintiff are substantial. Do you 'roll the dice' with a jury, or do you settle for a 'reasonable amount'? This is the dilemma faced by medical malpractice lawyers every day, and the decisions required here are not easily made.
Features
When a doctor obtains insurance from more than one carrier and both policies contain language along these lines ' 'Insurance under this coverage is excess of and payable only after all other valid insurance limits of coverage have been exhausted' ' which will be deemed the primary policy and which the excess policy? Or will they each cancel the other out? The answer will depend on myriad criteria, including the specific language of the policies, the amount the insured paid for coverage and whether one policy identifies the other insurer as the primary insurer.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified an issue important to workers' compensation insurers and held that pre-petition unpaid workers' compensation premiums are not entitled to priority status under the Bankruptcy Code. <i>Howard Delivery Service, Inc., et. al. v. Zurich American Insurance Co.</i>, 126 S. Ct. 2105 (2006). This decision forecloses any disagreement among the Circuit Courts that unpaid workers' compensation premiums are entitled to priority status in a bankruptcy proceeding. In light of <i>Howard</i>, such claims are now considered merely general unsecured claims. Had the Supreme Court afforded priority status to such claims, they would have been paid prior to the claims of general unsecured creditors. Generally, priority expense claims receive a significant, if not 100% distribution, as opposed to general unsecured claims, which, in many circumstances, receive only pennies on the dollar. In a decision delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, joined by five other justices (Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer), the Supreme Court's ruling not only brings consistency to this issue, but also provides opportunities for workers' compensation insurers to avoid forfeiture of payment of their premiums by financially troubled insureds.
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
A federal judge's findings about suspect diagnoses in thousands of silicosis cases in multidistrict litigation in Corpus Christi, TX, did not convince a state judge in Mississippi to sanction a Houston firm representing some plaintiffs in those cases.
Because expert testimony is so important in product liability litigation, disclosure is essential. Failure to comply with the rules governing disclosure can be fatal. A Rule 26 report disclosing proposed opinion testimony must meet specific and substantial criteria. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(b). The report must contain, <i>inter alia</i>: 1) a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis or reasons therefor, and 2) the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), <i>Tompkin v. Phillip Morris</i>, 362 F.3d 882, 895 (2004), <i>Brainard v. American Skandia Life Ins. Sopr.</i>, 2005 WL 3533545 (6th Cir. 2005).
Features
Part One of this article discussed the plight of same-sex couples arising from the debate over the legal status of same-sex relationships. New York has now decided that the state constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. The state's highest court has left the resolution of the injustices suffered by same-sex couples to the state legislature. Hernandez v. Robles (See article infra). The first part of the article addressed, inter alia, the 400-page report by the NYSBA Special Committee to Study Issues Affecting Same-Sex Couples, the inequitable application of the equitable distribution law and parents' and children's rights upon relationship dissolution. The conclusion herein discusses de facto parents.
Features
Part One of this article defined the newly evolving role of the parenting coordinator and discussed various statutory authorities for the PC role; the role's purpose and scope; how PCs are appointed; what decision-making authority PCs have or do not have; the timing of PC appointments; and the court's jurisdiction to make such appointments. Part Two dealt with additional PC topics, including continuing jurisdiction and judicial review of PC decisions or recommendations. Part Three addresses PC proceedings; ex parte communications; confidentiality; referral for third-party services; access to non-parties, children and privileged information; submission and exception to PC recommendations or reports; and PC immunity.
