Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
After months of preparation, the lawyers at Sanders, Simpson & Fletcher had their case almost ready for trial. The Springfield, MO, plaintiffs' firm of 11 lawyers had worked hard to fine-tune the civil case. Their client had the potential of being awarded significant damages. But the allegation -- sexual misconduct against a church pastor -- was tricky. Would the facts of the case resonate well with jurors?
The New Jersey Supreme Court, in <i>Creanga v. Jardal</i>, 185 N.J. 345 (2005), recently held that a treating physician's expert testimony on proximate cause is admissible if based on a reasonably conducted differential diagnosis that rules out plausible alternative causes of a plaintiff's injuries. However, a treating physician's expert testimony will be struck as a net opinion when the physician's differential diagnosis is based on subjective beliefs instead of the patient's medical history and diagnostic testing.
Features
In the midst of the medical liability crisis and a nationwide movement toward tort reform, including caps on non-economic damages, a new player has appeared on the scene. The "Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act," S. 1337, was introduced to the U.S. Senate in July 2005 in a bipartisan effort led by Sens. Michael Enzi (R-WY) and Max Baucus (D-MT). The stated purposes of the Act are: "1) to restore fairness and reliability to the medical justice system by fostering alternatives to current medical tort litigation that promote early disclosure of health care errors and provide prompt, fair, and reasonable compensation to patients who are injured by health care errors; 2) to promote patient safety through early disclosure of health care errors; and 3) to support and assist States in developing such alternatives."
Features
What do you get when you cross Court TV with the Food Channel? One answer: a recipe for a multi-million dollar jury verdict! Drug giant Merck will not see such blended TV programming, but it may have seen stars after getting hit with a $253 million jury award on Aug. 19, 2005. The first product liability trial against its Cox-2 inhibitor drug Vioxx in Angleton, TX, in August, 2005 produced a quarter-billion dollar award, $229 million of which was for punitive damages. Merck plans a vigorous appeal on multiple grounds. (Reportedly, grounds for appeal include: 1) letting in testimony from unqualified experts; 2) letting in testimony not based on reliable scientific evidence; 3) allowing irrelevant but prejudicial evidence in against Merck; and 4) letting in an undisclosed "surprise" witness against Merck.) Even pro-plaintiff observers concede that the award will likely drop to "only" $26 million due to recent Texas tort reform caps on punitive damages. (Merck fared better in its second and third Vioxx trials, which ended with a defense verdict and hung jury, respectively. Three Vioxx cases down -- only about 5998 to go!)
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
In many -- if not most -- matrimonial actions, counsel or the court almost always automatically ensure that the dependent spouse is provided with life insurance, despite the fact that the statute authorizing life insurance to secure alimony is permissive and not mandatory. In many cases where there is a child support obligation or an equitable distribution obligation, the purpose of life insurance is clear: to secure these obligations, in the event the paying spouse dies prior to their fulfillment. Life insurance protects the supported spouse by providing a source of funds to assist with the support of the children (an obligation that survives the death of the spouse) and by assuring that the payment of equitable distribution is received (because the payment should not depend on the life or death of the obligor).
My field is communications. My specialty is witness preparation. I am not a lawyer. Because I do not have to split my time between preparing a case and preparing a witness, I am free to focus exclusively on the problems and needs of witnesses. Over the years of preparing witnesses for both deposition and trial, I have made some interesting discoveries. For one thing, with proper preparation, there are very few witnesses who will remain bad ones. Almost all of them want to do the best job possible. They are highly motivated. The major reason for the problems and mistakes is lack of understanding of what is expected and lack of practice time to turn instructions into behavior.
