Five Keys to Assessing Economic Damages
August 24, 2003
The proper assessment of economic damages, once liability is determined, is one of the most crucial elements of the legal process. In fact, even before a case ever enters the courtroom, an accurate estimate of economic loss may pave the way for a settlement, saving both sides time and expense.
Implement a Compliance Plan Before It's Too Late!
August 01, 2003
In this era of heightened scrutiny of health care practices, every provider of health care services or products (<i>ie</i>, medical practices, clinical laboratories, billing companies, durable medical equipment suppliers, etc.) must implement compliance plans to educate their employees to avoid questionable billing practices before they become the subject of government criminal or civil investigations or lawsuits.
Verdicts
August 01, 2003
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
Jury Awards $12.5 Million to Paralyzed Boy
August 01, 2003
In one of the largest medical malpractice verdicts in Connecticut state history, a jury ordered Hartford Hospital to pay $12.5 million to a boy who became paralyzed from the neck down while awaiting surgery for a spinal tumor 7 years ago.
Spoliation of Evidence: The Lost Records Effect
August 01, 2003
There are two types of spoliation of evidence in medical negligence litigation: physical and content. Physical spoliation of evidence occurs where the tortfeasor physically destroys evidence or in some way makes the evidence unavailable. For example, there's the "shredder effect," where the record is physically destroyed. Or the record can be left on the Risk Manager's desk until the day prior to trial. In either event, there is no physical record.
Muddying the Mental Health Waters
August 01, 2003
<b><i>Too Many Professionals Can Wreak Legal Havoc</i></b> Psychiatry is far from being the only mental health profession. A review of the statutes in just this author's state of Alaska reveals separate professional licensing boards for social workers, marital and family therapists, nurses, professional counselors, psychologists, psychological associates and, of course, physicians.
Verdicts
May 01, 2003
The latest rulings of importance to your practice.
Peer Review: How Privileged?
May 01, 2003
How privileged, how impenetrable, is the peer review privilege? In <i>Fox v. Kramer</i>, 22 Cal. 4th 531, 994 P.2d 343 (Cal. 2000), the Supreme Court of California considered this narrow issue: Could plaintiffs Wendy Fox and her husband, Dr. Richard B. Fox, subpoena a doctor to give expert testimony or refer at trial to his draft preliminary report when his conclusions were based on hospital peer review committee records reviewed in the course of his official duties for a public agency?
After 100 Years, Hospital Liability Takes a Sharp Turn
May 01, 2003
You are ordinarily not liable for the misdeeds of others, right? Sure, you can be vicariously liable for certain conduct of employees and agents, but not others you may associate with, such as independent contractors. Except sometimes. And now, if you're a hospital that allows independent contractor physicians to treat patients at your facility, "sometimes" is presumptively "all the time." That is the rule laid down in the recent decision, <i>Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino</i> (2002), 99 Cal.App.4th 1448.
Defense Verdict in Breast Cancer Suit
May 01, 2003
A jury ruled for the defense in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff had undergone a double mastectomy after learning that invasive cancer originating in her left breast had spread to 24 nearby lymph nodes. After a 9-day trial before Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Sheldon Jelin in <i>D'Orazio v. Parlee & Tatem Radiologic Associates Ltd.</i>, jurors deliberated for 2 1/2 days before delivering a verdict on April 27. The verdict relieved three radiologists and two hospitals of liability for plaintiff Shirley W. D'Orazio's alleged reduced chances of survival due to the advanced stage of the disease at the time of diagnosis.
