The question of whether expert witnesses should be immune from disciplinary action when they testify as experts in medical malpractice trials is not just an American issue. Medical societies and courts worldwide are grappling with the subject and their decisions can inform discussions in our own country.
Last month, the authors discussed the fact that state laws vary regarding whether and when an impaired plaintiff can be present in the courtroom during the trial of his or her case. The authors conclude with a discussion on methods for diminishing the emotional impact on the jury of the courtroom presence of such a plaintiff.
Many nervous attorneys are inundating their state and local bar associations with questions about what their personal and firm responsibilities are when client trust accounts are held in banks that fail. Bar associations are responding with Web postings and formal ethics opinions.
Last month, the authors discussed some valuable advice that prescribers can use when they are faced with a patient suffering from chronic pain yet also want to avoid, as much as possible, potential investigation or liability. The conclusion herein reviews some of those recommendations.
Few cases inspire more sympathy than those involving a seriously impaired plaintiff. Such cases can be daunting to defense counsel because of the potential for juries to allow sympathy to overshadow their legal duty to consider the facts of each case objectively.
Lately, it is becoming increasingly clear that prisoners in our criminal justice systems are not the only ones at risk for receiving substandard medical care; similar problems are occurring in immigrant detention facilities. A look at two cases.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
