Third Circuit: Excess Insurer Need Not Prove Prejudice in Order to Enforce a Claims-Made and Reported Requirement
In a 2-1 opinion, the Third Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of an excess medical malpractice insurer in a case involving both policy construction and evidentiary issues. In <i>Lexington Insurance Company v. Western Pennsylvania Hospital, et al.</i>, 2005 WL 2174003 (3d Cir. 9/9/05), West Penn Hospital had three layers of medical malpractice coverage. The first layer was a primary policy issued by PHICO. The PHICO policy provided both general liability, on an occurrence basis, and medical malpractice coverage on a claims-made and reported basis. The next layer was $1 million worth of excess coverage provided by the Pennsylvania Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Fund (the "CAT Fund"). Lexington issued an excess policy over those first two layers. The CAT Fund coverage was also claims-made and reported.
OIG Report Cites Feds
State medical licensing boards and hospitals rely on many information sources when making licensing and credentialing decisions. One major source of information is the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), a reporting system managed by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Last month, the reliability of the information contained in the NPDB was called into question after reporting failures within the federal government itself were exposed by a report issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The OIG found that three Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies had failed to report as many as 474 medical malpractice cases that should have been reported to the NPDB over the course of several years.
Suits Against Health Care Employers
Liability claims against health care facilities, including hospitals and nursing homes, often include claims of negligent hiring, supervision and/or credentialing in addition to the "traditional" theories of medical malpractice litigation. For many years, state courts debated whether a hospital's alleged acts in credentialing physicians fell within the scope of the "treatment and care" of patients. While the majority of jurisdictions now appear to recognize private causes of action against a health care facility based upon alleged improper hiring, retention or credentialing of professional staff, there is no uniformly accepted standard of care nationwide. Accordingly, specialists and the occasional practitioner in this litigation field are equally well advised to monitor the developing common law of their jurisdiction in the litigation of cases presenting such claims.
Intricacies of the Class Action Fairness Act
Most medical malpractice attorneys deal primarily with individual clients and local medical providers and institutions. Sometimes, however, a case has broader reach, crossing state lines and encompassing claims by several plaintiffs. If the case is a class action lawsuit, a whole different set of rules and procedures come into play.
Merck Wins Big in Jersey Vioxx Trial
The nation's second trial over health effects of the drug Vioxx got swamped in New Jersey last month, as a jury categorically rejected claims that failure to warn about the painkiller's risks caused a user's heart attack. The jury found, 8-1, that Merck & Co. properly alerted prescribing physicians to a link between Vioxx and an increased risk of cardiovascular events, and found unanimously that there were no consumer-fraud violations in the way Merck marketed Vioxx to physicians. As a result, the jury never reached the question of proximate causation of postal worker Frederick "Mike" Humeston's heart attack.
Landmark Same-Sex Union Case Overturned By New York Appellate Court
The courts of New York dealt a blow to the cause of same-sex partners' family rights in October when the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Nassau County Supreme Court's denial of a motion to dismiss a wrongful death suit brought against a hospital by the surviving member of a couple legally joined in a Vermont civil union ceremony.
The Class Action Fairness Act: What Is It All About?
On Feb. 18, 2005, after the first bill signing ceremony of the year, President Bush approved the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") by signing it into law. CAFA is part of a goal to restore common sense and balance to America's legal system and end frivolous litigation which, President Bush stated, will include legislation to further reform tort law in the areas of asbestos and medical malpractice. "President Signs Class-Action Fairness Act of 2005," <i>www.white house.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050218-11.html.</i>
