<b><i>Cases Built on Anger</i></b> Million-dollar medical malpractice verdicts have doubled since 1996. They now make up 8% of all malpractice claims actually paid. This, at the same time that verdicts for the defense remain the norm and the number of lawsuit filings has actually fallen somewhat. Why? The quick - and partially correct - answer is that the cost of health care has skyrocketed.
Does a patient lose the right to invoke the physician/patient privilege when he or she has seen a physician for an independent medial examination (IME) rather than for treatment? The question may come up in the aftermath of a workers' compensation or medical malpractice case if questions of possible fraud on the claimant's part surface, and you may be asked to advise your client as to his or her rights.
Any physician who has had the unfortunate experience of being the target of a medical malpractice lawsuit bemoans the attention paid by the plaintiff's lawyers to precise record keeping. Most physicians pride themselves on their medical skills, not their neat note taking. They will tell you that entries in a medical record are meant to enhance the care and treatment rendered to a patient, not to be read by lawyers or juries many years later.
The exclusive remedy for patients injured due to medical malpractice by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment is through the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Under the FTCA, the United States allows claims to be made against it in certain circumstances. However, because the FTCA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, strict compliance with the requirements for filing is necessary in order to preserve your clients' rights to recovery.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
At the Oscars in March, Best Actress winner Frances McDormand made “inclusion rider” go viral. But Kalpana Kotagal, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll had already worked for months to write the language for such provisions. Kotagal was developing legal language for contract provisions that Hollywood's elite could use to require studios and other partners to employ diverse workers on set.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
While the DOJ Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative is still in its early stages and cybersecurity regulations are evolving, whistleblower plaintiffs have already begun leveraging the FCA to pursue alleged noncompliance with government cybersecurity requirements.
