Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
On Jan. 17, the U.S Supreme Court announced its decision in <i>Gonzalez v. Oregon</i>, upholding Oregon's state law on so-called 'physician-assisted suicide.' The Supreme Court decision rejected an effort by the Justice Department to punish physicians who assist terminally ill patients with prescriptions of lethal doses of controlled medications pursuant to the Oregon Death With Dignity Act (ODWDA). The case had been widely followed as it proceeded through the federal court system, and is now expected to invite similar legislation as other states consider enacting assisted-death laws. In this article, we consider the state and federal legislation that was placed at loggerheads by an administrative directive of the Attorney General of the United States; the decisions of the lower federal courts presented with the issue; and the ultimate disposition of the matter by the Supreme Court.
Features
After months of preparation, the lawyers at Sanders, Simpson & Fletcher had their case almost ready for trial. The Springfield, MO, plaintiffs' firm of 11 lawyers had worked hard to fine-tune the civil case. Their client had the potential of being awarded significant damages. But the allegation -- sexual misconduct against a church pastor -- was tricky. Would the facts of the case resonate well with jurors?
The New Jersey Supreme Court, in <i>Creanga v. Jardal</i>, 185 N.J. 345 (2005), recently held that a treating physician's expert testimony on proximate cause is admissible if based on a reasonably conducted differential diagnosis that rules out plausible alternative causes of a plaintiff's injuries. However, a treating physician's expert testimony will be struck as a net opinion when the physician's differential diagnosis is based on subjective beliefs instead of the patient's medical history and diagnostic testing.
Features
In the midst of the medical liability crisis and a nationwide movement toward tort reform, including caps on non-economic damages, a new player has appeared on the scene. The "Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act," S. 1337, was introduced to the U.S. Senate in July 2005 in a bipartisan effort led by Sens. Michael Enzi (R-WY) and Max Baucus (D-MT). The stated purposes of the Act are: "1) to restore fairness and reliability to the medical justice system by fostering alternatives to current medical tort litigation that promote early disclosure of health care errors and provide prompt, fair, and reasonable compensation to patients who are injured by health care errors; 2) to promote patient safety through early disclosure of health care errors; and 3) to support and assist States in developing such alternatives."
Features
What do you get when you cross Court TV with the Food Channel? One answer: a recipe for a multi-million dollar jury verdict! Drug giant Merck will not see such blended TV programming, but it may have seen stars after getting hit with a $253 million jury award on Aug. 19, 2005. The first product liability trial against its Cox-2 inhibitor drug Vioxx in Angleton, TX, in August, 2005 produced a quarter-billion dollar award, $229 million of which was for punitive damages. Merck plans a vigorous appeal on multiple grounds. (Reportedly, grounds for appeal include: 1) letting in testimony from unqualified experts; 2) letting in testimony not based on reliable scientific evidence; 3) allowing irrelevant but prejudicial evidence in against Merck; and 4) letting in an undisclosed "surprise" witness against Merck.) Even pro-plaintiff observers concede that the award will likely drop to "only" $26 million due to recent Texas tort reform caps on punitive damages. (Merck fared better in its second and third Vioxx trials, which ended with a defense verdict and hung jury, respectively. Three Vioxx cases down -- only about 5998 to go!)
Features
Whether you represent the patient or physician in a medical malpractice case, there are always significant repercussions when the physician's malpractice carrier becomes insolvent. Naturally, plaintiffs in such cases are concerned as to whether and how a judgment will be paid. Physicians are just as concerned that they may be personally responsible for some portion of a judgment. With a growing number of medical malpractice insurance carriers facing difficult financial times nationwide, parties are experiencing those concerns with increasing frequency.