The Future of Medical Trials in America
July 06, 2005
Four years have passed since the landmark Gelsinger case, in which attorney/modern-day crusader Alan Milstein of Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose & Podolsky, Pennsauken, NJ (and a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors) successfully brought suit on behalf of the family of Jesse Gelsinger, who died during a gene-therapy experiment at the University of Pennsylvania. From that point on, it became a brave new world. According to William Hirschborn, director of the office of Clinical Trials at Temple University School of Medicine in Philadelphia, who commented at the time: "Milstein opened the door for doctors to be held accountable."
A Word from the Editor
July 06, 2005
Editor-in-Chief Michael E. Clark, Esq., welcomes you to our new publication.
Scientific Deception
July 06, 2005
Regulators are increasingly becoming concerned about pharmaceutical companies that offer financial and other incentives to physician-researchers, reasoning that the incentives may affect the physicians' judgment when they make treatment decisions for beneficiaries of health care programs. They think that this can result in increased costs being passed on to the federal government. In the worst-case scenario, such incentives could cause medically unnecessary items and services to be provided, and patients to be harmed.
The Ethical Implications of Prisoner Organ Donation
July 06, 2005
Shortly after midnight on May 25, 2005, Gregory Scott Johnson was pronounced dead by the state of Indiana. In the weeks before his death, Johnson had gained notoriety for seeking to delay his execution so that he could donate part of his liver to his sister, who suffers from cirrhosis unrelated to alcoholism. But Johnson died with his liver intact. (As it turns out, Johnson would have made a poor donor, since testing shortly before his execution revealed that he had hepatitis.) This article explores the current status of the law regarding prisoner organ donation and the ethical implications for various approaches, particularly with respect to condemned prisoners.
Insurance Coverage for Silica Claims
June 30, 2005
Faced with increasing exposure, corporate policyholders that have or may receive silica-related claims should consider the potential for insurance coverage that may be available to respond and should realize and maximize the full benefit of their insurance policies.
After Texas Court Avoids Question on Duty to Warn, Can Suppliers Relax?
June 30, 2005
The nation's silica litigation attorneys and their clients kept a close watch on a case decided last year in Texas that was supposed to help define the limits of liability for failure to warn of silicosis danger. It took nearly 2 years for the Texas Supreme Court to finally issue its decision in <i>Humble Sand & Gravel Inc. v. Gomez</i>, 146 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004), holding that flint supplier Humble Sand & Gravel Inc. had no duty to warn companies whose employees used the product for abrasive blasting that there were risks associated with silica dust in the workplace. The reason the court gave for its decision was that the risks of silica dust in the workplace had been known for years and companies that regularly dealt with blasting materials were "sophisticated users."
News Briefs
June 30, 2005
Highlights of the latest silica news from around the country.
Where Will Silica Litigation Go?
June 30, 2005
It has been reported in the national press that plaintiffs' lawyers are mapping out a litigation scenario for silica based on the assumption that it will follow the asbestos model, <i>e.g.</i>, Warren, Susan, "Silicosis Suits Rise Like Dust: Lawyers in Asbestos Cases Target Many of the Same Companies," Wall St. J., Sept. 4, 2003, at B5; Glater, Jonathan D., "Suits on Silica Being Compared to Asbestos Cases," N.Y. Times, Sept. 6, 2003, at C1.
In the Spotlight: Being Gun-Shy ' Difficulties Surrounding the Trigger of Rights of First Refusal and First Offer
June 30, 2005
The right of first refusal ('ROFR') and its close cousin, the right of first offer ('ROFO'), collectively sometimes called pre-emptive rights, are devices used to afford the grantee a degree of flexibility in potentially buying or leasing the subject property at a future time. These rights can be considerably more troublesome, especially to grantors, than may be immediately apparent to many real estate deal makers. Many who have been 'burned' recognize that the problems include: 1) financial loss and delay in completing a transaction that arise from dampened interest in the subject property on the part of third-party potential bidders, and 2) disputes (sometimes resulting in litigation) that arise from issues surrounding the triggering, execution, and preservation of the right. This article focuses on the second problem, with special emphasis on disputes that revolve around the triggering of the pre-emptive rights. It also suggests certain drafting implications that follow from the analysis.
