New Jersey's Highest Court Admits Expert Testimony
February 28, 2006
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.
Special Medical Malpractice Courts
February 28, 2006
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."
Lessons from the First Vioxx Verdict
February 28, 2006
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!)
Life Insurance in a Divorce Setting
February 28, 2006
In many -- if not most -- matrimonial actions, counsel or the court almost always automatically ensure that the dependent spouse is provided with life insurance, despite the fact that the statute authorizing life insurance to secure alimony is permissive and not mandatory. In many cases where there is a child support obligation or an equitable distribution obligation, the purpose of life insurance is clear: to secure these obligations, in the event the paying spouse dies prior to their fulfillment. Life insurance protects the supported spouse by providing a source of funds to assist with the support of the children (an obligation that survives the death of the spouse) and by assuring that the payment of equitable distribution is received (because the payment should not depend on the life or death of the obligor).
Witness Preparation Checklist for Deposition
February 28, 2006
My field is communications. My specialty is witness preparation. I am not a lawyer. Because I do not have to split my time between preparing a case and preparing a witness, I am free to focus exclusively on the problems and needs of witnesses. Over the years of preparing witnesses for both deposition and trial, I have made some interesting discoveries. For one thing, with proper preparation, there are very few witnesses who will remain bad ones. Almost all of them want to do the best job possible. They are highly motivated. The major reason for the problems and mistakes is lack of understanding of what is expected and lack of practice time to turn instructions into behavior.
The Progressive Lawyer
February 28, 2006
The "Parenting Coordinator" or "Parent Coordinator" (PC) is a newly evolving professional role, which is now being implemented in an increasing number of states -- with or without the benefit of a specific Rule of Court or statutory authority -- as a means for dealing with high-conflict families involved in domestic relations proceedings before the courts. <b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article.</i></b>
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.Read More ›
- The Article 8 Opt InThe Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.Read More ›
- Removing Restrictive Covenants In New YorkIn Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?Read More ›
- Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.Read More ›