Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
When your motions for summary judgment in product liability cases are denied, your usual reaction is probably to move on and to begin focusing your case on how to win at trial. While that is usually the best approach, that doesn't mean you necessarily have to give up on the hope of winning the case on summary judgment before trial. Orders denying summary judgment are interlocutory, and so a court has the inherent power to reconsider them and change them at any time before entry of final judgment. <i>See, e.g., Freeman v. Kohl & Vick Mach. Works, Inc.</i> 673 F. 2d 196 (7th Cir. 1982). Nothing in the rules bars a party from filing a renewed motion for summary judgment and, as described below, there are times when such a motion is called for.
Destructive testing or examination of evidence in product liability cases may be a high-risk proposition. Proposing a destructive test or examination often discloses the thought processes of counsel or expert witnesses. In most cases, there probably will be only one opportunity to perform a destructive test or examination, so it must be done right the first time. The party proposing the destructive test or examination will be bound by the result, good or bad.
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
A successful defense against a consumer's claim that she was damaged from using a medication manufactured by one of your pharmaceutical clients may hinge significantly on the testimony provided by a research scientist, a pharmacologist, or perhaps a warnings or a marketing specialist. While these witnesses have key sources of knowledge about the product, its development, testing, labeling and/or distribution, they may also bring with them fears and inadequacies that could result in the ambush of your defense.
Features
One way for a manufacturer to ensure it has a proper warning on its product is to "use credible industry groups and trade associations, such as American National Standards Institute, for advice and guidance on labeling." "Manufacturers Beware: Liability When Warning Labels Are Ignored or Disobeyed," Product Liability Law & Strategy, July, 2003, Pg. 1.The Web site for the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is <i>www.ansi.org.</i> It is a private, nonprofit organization (501(c)(3)) that administers and coordinates the U.S. voluntary standardization and conformity assessment system.
Features
In this era of heightened scrutiny of health care practices, every provider of health care services or products (<i>ie</i>, medical practices, clinical laboratories, billing companies, durable medical equipment suppliers, etc.) must implement compliance plans to educate their employees to avoid questionable billing practices before they become the subject of government criminal or civil investigations or lawsuits.
<b><i>Too Many Professionals Can Wreak Legal Havoc</i></b> Psychiatry is far from being the only mental health profession. A review of the statutes in just this author's state of Alaska reveals separate professional licensing boards for social workers, marital and family therapists, nurses, professional counselors, psychologists, psychological associates and, of course, physicians.
Features
There are two types of spoliation of evidence in medical negligence litigation: physical and content. Physical spoliation of evidence occurs where the tortfeasor physically destroys evidence or in some way makes the evidence unavailable. For example, there's the "shredder effect," where the record is physically destroyed. Or the record can be left on the Risk Manager's desk until the day prior to trial. In either event, there is no physical record.
Features
In one of the largest medical malpractice verdicts in Connecticut state history, a jury ordered Hartford Hospital to pay $12.5 million to a boy who became paralyzed from the neck down while awaiting surgery for a spinal tumor 7 years ago.
