Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When lawyers discuss the role of information technology in their practice, a phrase often heard is "it's a necessary evil." Regardless of firm size or practice area, complaints regarding information technology (IT) are unfortunately all too common: large investments ... disappointing results.
Features
You are ordinarily not liable for the misdeeds of others, right? Sure, you can be vicariously liable for certain conduct of employees and agents, but not others you may associate with, such as independent contractors. Except sometimes. And now, if you're a hospital that allows independent contractor physicians to treat patients at your facility, "sometimes" is presumptively "all the time." That is the rule laid down in the recent decision, <i>Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino</i> (2002), 99 Cal.App.4th 1448.
Features
A jury ruled for the defense in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff had undergone a double mastectomy after learning that invasive cancer originating in her left breast had spread to 24 nearby lymph nodes. After a 9-day trial before Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Sheldon Jelin in <i>D'Orazio v. Parlee & Tatem Radiologic Associates Ltd.</i>, jurors deliberated for 2 1/2 days before delivering a verdict on April 27. The verdict relieved three radiologists and two hospitals of liability for plaintiff Shirley W. D'Orazio's alleged reduced chances of survival due to the advanced stage of the disease at the time of diagnosis.
Features
How privileged, how impenetrable, is the peer review privilege? In <i>Fox v. Kramer</i>, 22 Cal. 4th 531, 994 P.2d 343 (Cal. 2000), the Supreme Court of California considered this narrow issue: Could plaintiffs Wendy Fox and her husband, Dr. Richard B. Fox, subpoena a doctor to give expert testimony or refer at trial to his draft preliminary report when his conclusions were based on hospital peer review committee records reviewed in the course of his official duties for a public agency?
Features
The latest rulings of importance to your practice.
The first half of 2003 has not been kind to friends of punitive damages. No matter the setting, they have taken a beating.
Eight registered nurses who underwent pre-employment medical examinations were instead sexually harassed, according to a proposed Consent Decree submitted to Judge Leonard Sand by the EEOC and Lutheran Medical Center. Under the terms of the proposed settlement reached by the parties, the medical center has agreed to pay $5.425 million dollars to compensate the nurses and other female nurses similarly harassed.
Your ethics questions answered by the expert.
Features
The most substantial changes in more than 50 years to the way employers determine whether they are obligated to pay overtime compensation could well become reality. The United States Department of Labor (DOL) issued proposed revisions to its regulations on the "white-collar" exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on March 31, 2003. If enacted in a version close to their present form, the way you do business could change considerably.
Features
It is often said that bad facts make bad law. A corollary to that principle may be that notorious clients make for problematic verdicts. Such was the case in <i>Bell v. Helmsley</i>, 2003 WL 1453108 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Cty. 3/4/03), a trial dominated by the ever-entertaining presence of the Queen of Mean, Leona Helmsley.