... Ignorance of the process can turn a well-intentioned physician into a respondent in a physician misconduct proceeding. Since nothing threatens the foundation of a physician's practice more than the prospect of such a scenario, any contact from a representative of the state must be taken very seriously. Unfortunately, the combined effects of misinformation and misguided actions leave many physicians vulnerable to a procedure that can effectively strip them of their ability to earn a living. Learning the "who," "what," "why" and "how" of the process can hopefully keep you, your client or your client's staff members upstream of a problem and help ensure the continued viability of everyone's practice.
- August 31, 2005David S. Klausner
Merck & Co., founded in 1891, has a slogan -- what it calls its "guiding philosophy." That philosophy is, "patients first." In the first of many Vioxx trials expected to be litigated in state and federal courts across the country, the jury wasn't buying it. On Aug. 19, after a month-long trial, ten out of 12 jurors -- the number needed to return a verdict of guilty -- found Merck liable to the plaintiffs, survivors of a man who took Vioxx for pain relief. The damages award was staggering: $24.5 million in economic losses and compensation for mental anguish and $229 million in punitive damages.
August 31, 2005Janice G. InmanAs a practical matter, the decision of whether to settle claims brought against a policyholder is typically left to the insurer. The interests of the insurer and the policyholder are typically aligned, whether it is because of the policyholder's inherent desire to resolve the litigation, or the insurer's vastly greater experience in defending and settling claims. For claims falling within policy limits, however, there remains an enhanced possibility of a dispute between the policyholder and insurer over whether to settle. All litigation expenses will be borne by the insurer, as will the costs of any judgment. In contrast, continuing the litigation is a nominal cost for the policyholder. The policyholder may also have collateral interests at stake. In the most common of examples, a physician may wish to fight a malpractice claim rather than settle because of the potential damage to his or her professional reputation, a loss of business, an increase in future premiums, the potential termination of the policy, or impairment to his or her ability to obtain future coverage.
August 31, 2005Kristopher T. WilsonIn wealthy communities, like Greenwich and Darien, CT, country club membership can take on momentous significance. Nevertheless, the question of whether club membership is marital property has not been settled. A recent case tackled the problem and left it unanswered.
August 31, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Death, divorce and debt" are the bread and butter of the art and antiques market, as every art world professional knows. Through good times and bad, these life cycle events frequently trigger sales and other transactions. With divorce, however, if emotions are not already present prior to filing papers, the process itself tends to intensify anger and mistrust between opposing sides.
August 31, 2005Beverly Schreiber JacobyIn March of this year, in Part One of this article, we discussed the importance of the initial pendente lite application in introducing the parties to the judge and setting the tone for the balance of the case. The mandate that we provide judges with sound, hard evidence at the pendente lite phase -- in order to enable the courts to deal fairly with both sides pending the submission of final proofs -- was heavily stressed.
August 31, 2005Curtis J. RomanowskiNational cases for your review.
August 30, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |On April 14, 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court held in Li and Kennedy v. Oregon that the roughly 3000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County are not valid. The Supreme Court's decision may change the obligations and opportunities for employers, depending on the nature of the employer and the decisions the employer has previously made regarding whether or not to treat certain partners of employees as if they were spouses.
August 30, 2005Thomas I. Kramer

