Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
Increasingly alarmed by the real and imagined inequities of the medical malpractice system, physicians across the country have been looking everywhere for relief. They have lobbied for law reform at both state and federal levels, they have rallied and protested, and some have even gone "on strike." With so much angst and anger among so many affluent professionals, it was only a matter of time before an astute entrepreneur figured out a way to cash in on the problem. Which brings us to Dr. Jeffrey Segal, a North Carolina neurosurgeon and the founder of a new insurance plan called "Medical Justice," which he promotes as a deterrent to malpractice litigation. It is an intriguing idea that just might work. Then again, it might only be a clever marketing ploy.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which imposes requirements on hospitals with emergency departments to screen and stabilize anyone who comes to the emergency department seeking treatment, can provide the basis for a private civil action against the hospital if a person is injured by the hospital's violation of its requirements. New regulations clarifying hospitals' obligations under EMTALA went into effect November 10, providing new guidance on how the federal agency charged with enforcing the statute interprets its terms.
As part of discovery, the attorney would want to determine the origin of a particular medical record and seek explanations for whatever spoliation has occurred, whether physical (destruction or absence of the record) or content spoliation (an inaccurate account of the medical care). The place to begin, then, is with those responsible for enforcing medical record rules and regulations: the Chief of Staff and the hospital medical record librarian.
Features
An employee sues his former employer for ERISA violations and for unpaid commissions. The employer counterclaims, alleging various tort and statutory violations committed by the now former employee. Just another litigant asserting its right to seek redress in court. Right. Not according to the court ...
A party moves to compel arbitration. The court grants the motion. Should the court dismiss the action or stay the proceeding? If the court dismisses the action, should the dismissal be with or without prejudice?
Features
You are unsure of your rights, so you retain a lawyer. Do so at your own risk and detriment, one judge has concluded in the context of a FLSA claim for overtime. <i>Patraker v. The Council on the Environment of New York City</i>, 2003 WL 22336829 (S.D.N.Y. 10/14/03) (Kaplan D.J.)
In the context of electronic discovery but with implications beyond that setting, Judge Shira Scheindlin issued a further ruling in the hotly contested <i>Zubulake v. UBS Warburg</i> litigation outlining a defendant's obligation to preserve discovery following notice of a possible litigation. 2003 WL 22410619 (S.D.N.Y. 10/22/03) (<i>Zubulake IV</i>). In doing so, Judge Scheindlin has once again mapped the landscape and advanced the jurisprudence relating to the preservation, production, and payment of the costs of electronic discovery.
Your ethics questions answered by the expert.
Earlier this year, the US Department of Labor (DOL) published proposed regulations updating the notice and disclosure requirements applicable to health care continuation coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). These proposed regulations update model notices, give disclosure guidance, and establish two new required COBRA notices.
