Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The California Court of Appeal recently interpreted the scope of California Business & Professions Code ' 809.05, subdivision (a) in the case of <i>Weinberg v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center</i>, 119 Cal. App. 4th 1098; 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 6; 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1017 (5/28/04). <i>Weinberg</i> is the first published opinion dealing with the law, which requires that a hospital governing body give "great weight" to a peer review committee's recommendations regarding disciplinary proceedings against a physician, but authorizes the body to reject those recommendations, provided it does not do so arbitrarily or capriciously. The California Court of Appeal applied this statute to the review of physician disciplinary charges by the governing board of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center after four peer review committee members identified deficiencies in a physician's performance, but nonetheless recommended against terminating his staff privileges.
In recent years, many states have enacted punitive damage limitations on medical malpractice actions to help doctors, nurses and other health care workers stay in business and to stem the tide of medical insurer defections from high-risk states to states offering lower exposure to loss. However, depending on the way the punitive damage cap provisions are written, states may or may not be affording health care workers and insurers the protections they intended to give. Case in point: <i>Johannesen v. Salem Hospital</i>, 336 Or. 211, 82 P.3d 139 (2003). In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a decision that broadens the scope of punitive damages claims against health care providers in Oregon beyond those that the legislature presumably intended.
Recent developments in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
Features
Recent cases in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
Features
Debate has been healthy recently over whether, and how, the European Union (EU) should amend its laws to allow software and business methods to be patented. The traditional, widely held view is that neither of these things is capable of patent protection under EU legislation; and while this isn't strictly true, much ink and air has been expended on the pros and cons in the argument. <br>What everybody does agree on, however, is that the current EU regime is ambiguous and inconsistent, with the result that one EU member state may grant a patent over an idea that would be refused by another member state. The European Commission has, therefore, attempted to solve the problems by proposing new legislation ' with what success remains to be seen.
Features
In June, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its judgment in <i>Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers</i>. This landmark ruling, colloquially known as the Tariff 22 decision, read together with the SCC's decision in <i>Galerie d'Art du Petit-Champlain v. Theberge</i> and <i>CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada</i>, clarifies the current state of Canadian copyright law as it relates to activities occurring over the Internet. In particular, the decision describes the potential liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) in the context of Copyright Act.
Features
For many people, going online is the first step in buying anything. <br>Yet, some firms refuse to sell online. Sound odd ' behind the times? On its face, perhaps, but sound business reasons explain such "backward" behavior ' and they're the same reasons why many brick-and-mortar businesses choose not to accept phone or mail orders.
Features
Large and medium size law firms have embraced client surveys as an effective marketing tool for gathering valuable information from clients and the marketplace for almost 25 years. However, they still continue to pay lip service to client relationships but don't incorporate this data into their strategic growth plans for their organization.
Anyone familiar with this column, or my rantings in a variety of other locations, knows that I'm not a huge fan of the billable hour. I think it drives a certain kind of "wrong think" about the value of working smart vs. working long. Law firm management folks also tend to use the billable hour as the one "uber number" to drive all other considerations ' including marketing ' aside. Like they say, when your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. <br>What surprises me even further about the billable hour, though, is how little its use is exploited as a marketing and business tool.
When it comes to litigation and media relations, the reactions can run as extreme as day and night. One litigator wants the whole world to know her involvement with a lawsuit and be quoted in every single article written on it, while another litigator is unsure about how and when to use media relations and takes the safe approach by avoiding it altogether. Neither are satisfied with the results: the media-hungry litigator had too few reporters call her for interviews, and the media-hesitant litigator wonders why neither him nor his Firm are mentioned in any news reports on his case. <br>In both instances, a media-relations plan specifically focused on pending litigation could have provided a happier medium for both.