Hospital Allowed to Keep Report from Disclosure
In a decision that could influence discovery in federal medical-device products liability litigation, a Magistrate Judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has held that a state-law provision designed to encourage hospitals to maintain quality assurance and infection control programs without fear of litigation can be invoked to block disclosure of hospital records even where there is, at most, an indirect threat of a malpractice suit and where the…
The Hospital Defendant
It is said that 'doctors bury their mistakes.' At one time that may have been more true than in modern times, and when the original peer-review privileges case came out, it seemed as if it may have been more possible to bury culpable behavior in peer-review. That is not the case in 2007.
Failure to Warn
The author, Tim O'Brien, was appointed Lead Counsel by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in MDL No. 1789, <i>In re Fosomax Products Liability Litigation</i>. The opinions expressed herein are Mr. O'Brien's and represent some of the arguments the plaintiffs are or will be making in the litigation.
'If It Was Not Charted, It Was Not Done'
Documentation is an important part of medical care. Consultation notes, test results, physician orders and nursing observations all assist in ensuring continuity of care. In litigation, however, the significance of the written chart is often elevated from a tool for patient care to historical written account of past events. In this latter context, many in the medical community have advocated that if an event (an order, a consultation, a phone call, etc.) was not documented in the official patient record, it did not happen. Over time, this 'negative evidence' has been used to prove negligent omissions on the part of various care providers by showing that they failed to do something that they should have done, because if it had been done it would have been charted. The same 'lack of entry' evidence is also used to disprove (or create doubt) that an event testified to by a witness on the stand did not occur.
Features
Drug & Device News
The latest happenings in this important area.
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 ›
- Online Interviewing for Use in Lanham Act LitigationInternet interviewing will undoubtedly become the norm over the next decade. Being familiar with the ways to enhance its reliability and validity will be necessary to create scientifically valid, controlled, and reliable studies that can be used in Lanham Act litigation.Read More ›
- China Finalizes New Regulations to Relax Personal Data Exports from ChinaNearly six months after the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) was first introduced for public consultation, the much-awaited final rules on Regulating and Facilitating Cross-border Data Flows were published and came into effect on March 22, 2024. The New Regulations largely repeat the Draft Regulations, but now have further relaxed personal data exports from China.Read 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 ›