LJN Newsletters

Court rulings across the country are showing that the increased use of genetic testing has substantially expanded physicians' liability for failure to counsel patients about hereditary disorders. In recent years courts in Minnesota, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Utah, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Virginia have ruled on medical malpractice cases stemming from genetic testing issues. Decisions issued in those courts have tried to carve out rules on when physicians have a duty to relay information gleaned from genetic testing.

Part Two of a Two-Part Article. In last month's newsletter, we looked at the symptoms of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and the incentives plaintiffs who claim such injuries may have to exaggerate their symptoms. In this month's conclusion, we see how forensic experts test for and detect this type of fraud on defendants and their insurers.

Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

Lawyers for two Christian legal groups, the Liberty Counsel and the Alliance Defense Fund, were not satisfied with Attorney General Bill Lockyer's first meaty arguments in defense of California's marriage laws. The two groups rushed to the courthouse to try to stop San Francisco's same-sex marriages last winter. They want to be more than amici in the case -- they want to take part as parties to the litigation. As amici, the groups would be able to submit written arguments, and perhaps take part in oral argument; however, if they are considered parties, they would be able to argue orally, enter evidence, cross-examine witnesses and participate in strategy

A New York couple's short marriage may have a lasting effect on New York state law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, said a tort suit between spouses cannot be filed separately from, and after, a divorce action; the claim must be joined to the divorce suit. Accordingly, the court upheld the dismissal of a suit filed by a woman against her soon-to- be-ex-husband for intentional infliction of emotional distress and personal injuries on the basis of claim preclusion. Chen v. Fischer, 2003-00397.

The recent developments in the creation and recognition of relationships among same-sex couples have developed a momentum which, like it or not - the recent laws passed by 13 states banning gay marriage, notwithstanding - must be recognized and understood by family lawyers and other related practitioners in the areas of tax, estate planning, adoption, and other financial and interpersonal disciplines. See Wilson R: The Changing and Conflicting State of Same-Sex Marriage. The Matrimonial Strategist, November 2004.

Shortly after the entry of a divorce judgment, matrimonial litigants walk away with their respective pieces of the marital estate (sometimes with support or distributive payments to follow) and begin separate lives with separate interests. However, without adequate protections under the law, the value of the marital estate before that pivotal moment (and the value of each litigant's post-termination estate) could have been diminished by the actions of the other spouse. For this reason, some concept of a fiduciary obligation between spouses exists in the majority of the states. Whether in equitable distribution jurisdictions or community property jurisdictions "spouses must manage marital property with care shortly before the termination of the marriage to ensure that the full value of the marital estate gets divided justly according to the prevailing system of distribution.

The U.S. Congress recently reinstated a ban on Internet access taxes after the House of Representatives agreed to extend it for another 3 years rather than make it permanent.