LJN Newsletters

Once again this year Marketing The Law Firm is presenting its Best of Visual Identity Innovators. This competition was open only to law firms of all sizes. The graphic design firm or those responsible for the creative side of the project receive "honorable mention."

Part Four of a Four-Part Series In the last three newsletters, we discussed the problems inherent in setting up parental access plans in this era in which…

Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court agreed on Jan. 29 to hear an appeal to a case that last summer upheld application of a state law that prevents out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts. The underlying suit, Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, was brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), a gay-rights organization, on behalf of eight couples from six states. These couples hoped to marry in Massachusetts after the Supreme Judicial Court held in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that gay couples had the constitutional right to marry under state law.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

A law guardian is an attorney who is appointed to ensure that the best interests of the child, who is the subject of the litigation, are served, while the guardian ad litem is a person appointed to protect the rights and interests of a party to the action, who is under a disability. For many years, the appointment of a law guardian has been mandatory in certain Family Court proceedings, such as juvenile delinquency, PINS (Persons in Need of Supervision) and child protective proceedings. See FCA 249(a). Every once in a while we read a decision in which the Supreme Court has appointed a guardian ad litem for a child in a custody case. Such appointments are unusual, since the rights and obligations of the guardian ad litem differ from those of a law guardian. What are the differences, and when is appointment of one or the other appropriate?

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America reported on Feb. 22 that a record number of patients received free or discounted medications from America's pharmaceutical companies last year as part of an industry initiative to help low-income consumers access the medications they need. "PhRMA member companies know a medication that sits on a shelf, out of financial reach of patients, helps no one," said Billy Tauzin, president and chief executive officer of PhRMA. Under these programs, consumers received more than 22 million prescriptions with a wholesale value of $4.17 billion in 2004, up from 18 million prescriptions with a value of $3.4 billion in 2003.

In this Special Issue, we explore some of the new safeguards that are being proposed and put into place to protect consumers from the unintended side effects of using medications and medical devices. We also look at the controversy surrounding the importation of lower-cost medications from foreign sources, and at one case that highlighted the interplay between medical providers and drug manufacturers in marketing pharmaceutical products.

The high cost of prescription medications in the United States has been troubling health care providers and their patients for years. Physicians worry that it will do no good to prescribe a medication to someone who won't be able to afford to buy it, and patients who try to save money by taking less than the prescribed dose worry that that they're putting their health in danger. Any failed medical treatment that harms a patient is fertile ground for a lawsuit against the physician, even if he or she is not the one to blame. Should medical practitioners suggest imported drugs to their patients who might otherwise not be able to afford their prescribed medications?