The Anatomy of a Professional Medical Misconduct Hearing
... Ignorance of the process can turn a well-intentioned physician into a respondent in a physician misconduct proceeding. Since nothing threatens the foundation of a physician's practice more than the prospect of such a scenario, any contact from a representative of the state must be taken very seriously. Unfortunately, the combined effects of misinformation and misguided actions leave many physicians vulnerable to a procedure that can effectively strip them of their ability to earn a living. Learning the "who," "what," "why" and "how" of the process can hopefully keep you, your client or your client's staff members upstream of a problem and help ensure the continued viability of everyone's practice.
First Vioxx Ruling
Merck & Co., founded in 1891, has a slogan -- what it calls its "guiding philosophy." That philosophy is, "patients first." In the first of many Vioxx trials expected to be litigated in state and federal courts across the country, the jury wasn't buying it. On Aug. 19, after a month-long trial, ten out of 12 jurors -- the number needed to return a verdict of guilty -- found Merck liable to the plaintiffs, survivors of a man who took Vioxx for pain relief. The damages award was staggering: $24.5 million in economic losses and compensation for mental anguish and $229 million in punitive damages.
The Insurer's Right to Settle
As a practical matter, the decision of whether to settle claims brought against a policyholder is typically left to the insurer. The interests of the insurer and the policyholder are typically aligned, whether it is because of the policyholder's inherent desire to resolve the litigation, or the insurer's vastly greater experience in defending and settling claims. For claims falling within policy limits, however, there remains an enhanced possibility of a dispute between the policyholder and insurer over whether to settle. All litigation expenses will be borne by the insurer, as will the costs of any judgment. In contrast, continuing the litigation is a nominal cost for the policyholder. The policyholder may also have collateral interests at stake. In the most common of examples, a physician may wish to fight a malpractice claim rather than settle because of the potential damage to his or her professional reputation, a loss of business, an increase in future premiums, the potential termination of the policy, or impairment to his or her ability to obtain future coverage.
Bit Parts
Recent developments in entertainment law.This month:Executive Compensation Deals/ Stockholders' Suit.Video Games/Use of Likeness.
Physician and Medical Device Defendants
Politics make strange bedfellows," is an election-year maxim. Sometimes, bitter rivals in primaries become allies after a convention, or forge alliances to get favored bills and "pet" proposals approved. But while politics may make strange bedfellows, it has nothing on personal injury litigation. Perhaps nowhere is this more true than in the realm of medical liability lawsuits involving doctors and medical device companies as co-defendants. The intersection of medical malpractice and product liability litigation often pulls together two distinct but interrelated entities, which can both end up as defendants in complaints incorporating allegations of medical malpractice and product defect.
Using Daubert to Defeat Causation in the Delayed Diagnosis Claim
The old maxim, "the earlier the treatment, the better the outcome" has been a longtime staple in plaintiffs' collection of so-called "expert medical opinions." Let's face it -- the notion that earlier treatment is preferable, while imprecise, seems like a logical conclusion for most of us. However, the Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in <i>McDowell v. Brown</i>, 392 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), establishes that such general medical principles, which are typically based on no more than the expert physician's common-sense and anecdotal experience, are far too speculative to overcome an evidentiary challenge pursuant to <i>Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmeceuticals, Inc.</i>, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and therefore fail to establish causation in a medical negligence case. Part One of a Two-Part Article.
Wrongful Death Suit Allowed over Embryo
Earlier this year, a Chicago judge ruled that a husband and wife will be allowed to proceed with a wrongful death suit against a fertility clinic that allegedly inadvertently discarded their fertilized egg. Lawyers say courts have previously considered cases involving embryos to be property rights or negligence claims, but a wrongful death action presents a new issue that could affect abortion law, stem cell research, genetic testing and a wide range of other issues. "Calling this a wrongful death is a new frontier for the judiciary," said Andrew Worek, a medical malpractice defense lawyer with Philadelphia's Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby. Worek has written about the legal issues surrounding pre-embryonic human cells. "In the past, they have been handled as property or negligence cases."
First Vioxx Ruling
Merck & Co., founded in 1891, has a slogan -- what it calls its "guiding philosophy." That philosophy is, "patients first." In the first of many Vioxx trials expected to be litigated in state and federal courts across the country, the jury wasn't buying it. On Aug. 19, after a month-long trial, ten out of 12 jurors -- the number needed to return a verdict of guilty -- found Merck liable to the plaintiffs, survivors of a man who took Vioxx for pain relief. The damages award was staggering: $24.5 million in economic losses and compensation for mental anguish and $229 million in punitive damages.
The Double Blind Placebo Controlled Trial
The blind allegiance to what I call the "fool's gold standard" lives on. Anyone with even a passing interest in bioethics knows it is unethical to conduct a double blind placebo controlled trial where standard therapy exists, except under limited circumstances. The exceptions are where: 1) there is no risk of harm if the patient forgoes treatment during the placebo phase such as in a trial for a drug that seeks to cure hair loss or impotence; 2) the standard therapy carries such severe side effects that patients might choose to avoid it; or 3) the standard therapy is otherwise of questionable efficacy.
