Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The most recent news you need to know.
Features
In this writer's experience, the majority of medical malpractice cases involve a primary target defendant, usually a hospital or attending physician, often joined with multiple codefendants with less potential exposure. It is not uncommon to find three or more defense firms playing active roles in the discovery process, and, for purposes of this article, we shall refer to those defendants with lesser potential exposure as 'secondary defendants.'
Rough spots are common on the road of civil litigation, but it's not every day that a plaintiff's attorney sues his adversary for asking 'inhumane' questions during a deposition that allegedly inflict 'grievous emotional distress.' That's the thrust of a suit filed July 11 in Essex County, NJ.
Medical device products liability litigation and medical malpractice litigation have intersected for as long as physicians have been prescribing and implanting medical devices, but that overlap continues to increase and become even more intricate as medical devices become more sophisticated and more widely utilized by physicians and the public, and as plaintiffs increasingly seek to keep their cases in state court by including local diversity-destroying defendants in suits.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
There has been a great deal of publicity in the medical community about apology programs ' programs that encourage doctors to affirmatively admit medical mistakes to patients and their families. While there is a lot of support for the idea, there is also a good deal of controversy over whether these programs actually work to reduce litigation and the cost of medical malpractice claims. What, realistically, can apology programs do ' and what can they not do?
Features
Confidential physician peer reviews may be disclosed to plaintiffs in federal discrimination and antitrust cases in three federal circuits, even though all 50 states and the District of Columbia recognize a privilege against disclosure of the performance ratings. This growing federal-state divergence will make federal courts more attractive to plaintiffs filing civil rights suits involving doctors, attorneys say. At the same time, it may have a chilling effect on peer review participant candor and on the ability of health care facilities to recruit peer review team members.