Grappling With Liability Issues For Entertainment Attorneys
June 01, 2004
Attorneys are faced with a variety of potential liability issues in handling matters for clients. Malpractice insurance can help, but such policies don't eliminate the raising of liability claims. These claims may include disqualification of counsel based on alleged adverse interests of clients, malpractice allegations based on transactional and litigation work and the threat of Rule 11 sanctions. <br>The entertainment business presents its own lawyer liability concerns.
Verdicts
May 28, 2004
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
AHLA Seeks Clarification on Malpractice Insurance
May 28, 2004
<b>Part One of a two-part article</b>. Proper malpractice coverage is essential to any physician's practice. When that coverage is not readily available or premiums skyrocket, that essential can seem like a luxury. Physicians facing other economic pressures in their practice not infrequently opt to reduce their insurance limits, increase their deductible, drop their coverage altogether, retire or leave the area, or discontinue what they view as high-risk portions of their practice (eg, serving on ER call rosters or accepting Medicaid or indigent patients). As a result, physicians' personal assets (and careers) are more at risk, hospitals face more liability exposure as the "deep pocket," and patients face significantly reduced access to care.
Mistake of Judgment: Calling Out for Clarity
May 28, 2004
In medical malpractice cases, it is a matter of hornbook law that health care providers bear no liability for poor outcomes resulting from the exercise of professional judgment, as long as they adhere to the relevant standard of care. In an attempt to facilitate jurors' understanding of this concept, courts across the country have given "mistake" or "error-of-judgment" charges, which typically instruct the jury that physicians are entitled to exercise their professional judgment in choosing either of two reasonable options.
Revisiting Pretrial Protocol and Procedure
May 28, 2004
<b>Part Two of a two-part article.</b> In last month's issue, we discussed the defense problem of increasingly high med-mal verdicts. This month, we explore strategies that defendants anticipating their personal day in court should consider if they hope to buck the trend toward high jury verdicts in medical malpractice actions.
Med Mal News
May 28, 2004
National news that affects your practice.
Effective Use of Experts: The Rules of Engagement
May 01, 2004
Expert testimony 'can be both powerful and quite misleading' because of a jury's difficulty in evaluating such evidence. — <i>Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,</i> 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993). Expert testimony is an integral part of products liability litigation. As the excerpt above articulates, expert testimony is powerful and its importance should not be underestimated or trivialized. Selecting an expert who can simplify the issues for the fact-finder, yet maintain his or her composure under cross-examination, is a difficult and time-consuming process. In short, because your expert's credibility is critical to the success of your case, you need to understand the rules of engagement at the outset.
The Defense Must Go On: An Insurance Company's Rescission Defense Does Not Pre-empt Its Obligation to Defend Its Insured
May 01, 2004
Today's headlines are filled with stories about corporate scandals and trials of corporate executives accused of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence. The natural fallout has been SEC investigations, hundreds of civil lawsuits, and criminal prosecutions. Directors' and officers' insurers ("D&O insurers") have seen a dramatic increase in claims as a result of these events. The initial battleground relating to the corporate scandal claims is whether there is a duty to defend or pay defense costs. The D&O insurers have asserted numerous defenses to providing a defense or paying defense costs. One defense that is being asserted frequently is rescission or "unilateral" rescission (collectively "rescission"). The rescission defense attempts to extinguish the policy by declaring it void <i>ab initio</i>. Recently, the majority of courts that have considered rescission have rejected it or deferred consideration of it, while ordering the D&O insurer to pay for, or provide the policyholder with, a defense. This article discusses recent cases that have addressed insurers' rescission arguments and explores the arguments that rebut the rescission defense.
The 'New Normal': SARS Liability Implications
April 27, 2004
Without disease and illness, there would be no need for life science companies or the products that they develop. Some modern maladies and ailments present more challenges than opportunities for biotech and medical device firms. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and comparable pathogens present medical device and life science manufacturers with new and daunting risks. One such peril lies in the realm of product liability.
Case Briefing
April 27, 2004
The latest rulings of importance to you and your practice.
