Vytorin and the ENHANCE Study
The news that the drug Vytorin' may not be very effective for its advertised purpose has created a crisis for its manufacturers. Critics claim the results of a clinical trial of the medication's efficacy were released months, if not years, after the drug companies knew their product was not what they had originally claimed. Now, government oversight agencies are investigating the possibility that the drug's manufacturers are guilty of insider trading, medical test manipulation and/or false advertising. In addition, shareholders are upset and consumers are suing.
Features
Lack of Informed Consent vs. Battery
A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal explores the relationship between the doctrine of informed consent and the intentional tort of battery. The case, <i>Saxena v. Goffney</i>, which was decided Jan. 24, illustrates the importance to both plaintiff and defense teams of keeping the two theories straight, not only in argument but in formulating the jury instructions. Failure to do so could result in reversal on appeal.
Features
Contingency Fees for 'Medico-Legal Services'
In light of the uncertain legal terrain, New York State practitioners and those in states with unsettled law on the issue should proceed with caution if considering advising a client to enter into a contingency fee agreement with a medico-legal service for, <i>inter alia</i>, locating expert witnesses.
Features
Medical Battery
Medical battery is generally defined as a touching that the patient has not consented to. This occurs when the care provider steps far outside the agreed-upon scope of treatment or, more infrequently, omits to obtain any consent to treatment at all. The New Jersey Supreme Court defined the concept in <i>Perna v. Pirozzi</i>: 'If the claim is characterized as a failure to obtain informed consent, the operation may constitute an act of medical malpractice; if, however, it is viewed as a failure to obtain any consent, it is better classified as a battery.'
Privacy and Consent
Internet telemedicine is plagued by concern for patients whose physicians prescribe medication without a face-to-face examination. Consequently, state boards of medical examiners and state legislatures throughout the country have initiated disciplinary hearings and legislation to limit a physician's ability to practice medicine without prior hands-on contact with a patient.
Features
No More Free Lunch!
Legally speaking, a cause of action for a physician's failure to disclose a financial relationship with a drug company or medical device manufacturer may take the form of a medical malpractice case for lack of informed consent or breach of fiduciary duty. This article discusses what physicians can do.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- The Article 8 Opt InThe 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.Read More ›
- Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult CoinWith 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.Read More ›
- Clause & EffectNet-Profit Rights/Movies Based on TV Shows<br>Insurance/Contract-Breach Exclusion<br>Insurance/Copyright-Infringement CoverageRead More ›
- Rights and Obligations In Patent LicensesThe 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.Read More ›
- Foreseeability as a Bar to Proof of Patent InfringementThe 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.Read More ›