Suits Against Health Care Employers
November 29, 2005
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
November 29, 2005
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.
OIG Report Cites Feds
November 29, 2005
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.
Merck Wins Big in Jersey Vioxx Trial
November 29, 2005
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.
Verdicts
November 29, 2005
Recent rulings of interest.
Litigation
November 29, 2005
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Trust Planning
November 29, 2005
Trust planning clearly contemplates the future incapacity and death of the donor. The future incapacity or death of the trustee, however, is not always planned for with equivalent detail and thought. This lack of forethought often results in contests between the remaining competent trustees or between the beneficiaries and the trustees. In the matrimonial context, divorcing spouses should carefully consider who should serve as trustees of trusts established for the benefit of children and/or former spouses. Again, the consequences of what happens when that carefully chosen trustee ceases or fails to serve might not be contemplated. When the beneficiaries and trustees are not friendly, as is often the case in trusts established as part of a divorce agreement, the stakes are even higher. To avoid unnecessary and costly battles, the drafting attorney and the trust's donor should focus on matters, including the definition of incapacity, the procedures involved with declaring a trustee incapacitated, how the trust will be administered once a trustee is declared incapacitated, short term incapacity or unavailability, and the possible tax consequences of a having an incapacitated trustee.
Two New Angles on Custody Litigation
November 29, 2005
Custody litigators use expert testimony and tests to influence the court's decision about which parent should have custody of the child(ren). Psychologists and the MMPI2 test are two tools frequently utilized, but they should be viewed with caution. The American Psychology Association Guidelines for Use in Custody Cases (Guidelines), which were promulgated by the American Psychological Association in 1994, have been a source of discussion and controversy in the courtroom since they were first published. Are they guidelines or are they mandatory directives for the approaches to be taken by the evaluator in the custody evaluation process? For those of us who handle custody litigation, a recent case in Pennsylvania is instructive.
