Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
As discussed last month, most states adhere to the collateral source rule to preclude defendants in med mal suits from presenting the jury with evidence that public benefits, such as state-provided special education and therapy, may be available to the plaintiff. Not all states have fallen in line with this general rule, however.
In 2012, OCR has entered into four settlement agreements with Corrective Action Plans (CAPs), more than in any year since HITECH went into effect; three of these arose from breach notifications, which had not happened before.
The tug-of-war pitting patients against pharmaceutical companies against pharmacists selling competing compound drug mixtures to the public has lately gained greater urgency.
In last month's newsletter, we discussed the recently decided case <i>In Re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation</i>,in which the Third Circuit bucked the trend of rubber-stamping pay-for-delay patent lawsuit settlements. The discussion concludes herein.
The fastest way to a mistrial is to mention the word "insurance" in front of the jury. This maxim refers to the collateral source rule. But what about the words "public benefits" or "special education"?
Features
Robotic technology may spawn both medical malpractice and product liability exposures, claims and lawsuits. Suits and claims may arise from one area or both. Here's what you need to know.
