In the medical malpractice arena, the decision whether or not to arbitrate a case is an important one. Going through the arbitration process and allowing the case to be determined by an arbitrator or an arbitration panel, rather than trying the case and allowing the outcome to be determined by a civil jury, can have advantages and disadvantages to both the physician and the patient.
Does the increased scrutiny on drug products for evidence that they cause suicidal thoughts mean that suits seeking damages for such thoughts in drug consumers have a better chance at success? An in-depth discussion.
Recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed a directed verdict based on <i>Daubert</i> principles in a shoulder dystocia case. The court reasoned that the expert's testimony was 'unreliable' because of improper use of the 'differential diagnosis' method and the fact that he made unsupported leaps from assumed facts to conclusions without evidentiary or medical/scientific support. Here's an analysis of the court's thinking.
In a stunning turnaround today, separate appeals courts in New Jersey and Texas reversed verdicts against Merck from some of the earliest trials involving the now-withdrawn painkiller Vioxx.
The parents of the approximately 5,000 children who developed autism symptoms following vaccination who currently have claims filed with the government seeking compensation were given an unexpected shot of hope in March by the news that the government had agreed to compensate one child for vaccine-related onset of autism symptoms.
In mediations involving insurers, lawyers and mediators need answers to unique questions: What kind of insurance exists? Why was it obtained? Do parties perceive it as a 'blank check'? How and when does the topic of insurance come up and who raises it (parties or mediators)? Does it raise unique issues, such as multiple representation, confidentiality and conflicts of interest?
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.
