Verdicts
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Med Mal News
Medical malpractice issues in today's headlines
CA Court: Peer Review Committee's Recommendations Not Final
The California Court of Appeal recently interpreted the scope of California Business & Professions Code ' 809.05, subdivision (a) in the case of <i>Weinberg v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center</i>, 119 Cal. App. 4th 1098; 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 6; 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1017 (5/28/04). <i>Weinberg</i> is the first published opinion dealing with the law, which requires that a hospital governing body give "great weight" to a peer review committee's recommendations regarding disciplinary proceedings against a physician, but authorizes the body to reject those recommendations, provided it does not do so arbitrarily or capriciously. The California Court of Appeal applied this statute to the review of physician disciplinary charges by the governing board of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center after four peer review committee members identified deficiencies in a physician's performance, but nonetheless recommended against terminating his staff privileges.
JCAHO Issues Alert
The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) issued an alert on Oct. 6 cautioning health care providers about the dangers of "anesthesia awareness." The organization asserts that tens of thousands of patients undergoing surgery each year remain partially awake while under general anesthesia during surgery, but are unable to communicate this problem to their caregivers. JCAHO's alert aims to make health care providers more aware of this phenomenon so that they can reduce the risks of its occurrence and better support patients when it does happen.
Tort Reform
In recent years, many states have enacted punitive damage limitations on medical malpractice actions to help doctors, nurses and other health care workers stay in business and to stem the tide of medical insurer defections from high-risk states to states offering lower exposure to loss. However, depending on the way the punitive damage cap provisions are written, states may or may not be affording health care workers and insurers the protections they intended to give. Case in point: <i>Johannesen v. Salem Hospital</i>, 336 Or. 211, 82 P.3d 139 (2003). In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a decision that broadens the scope of punitive damages claims against health care providers in Oregon beyond those that the legislature presumably intended.
Software And Business Method Patents In Europe ' Where Are We?
Debate has been healthy recently over whether, and how, the European Union (EU) should amend its laws to allow software and business methods to be patented. The traditional, widely held view is that neither of these things is capable of patent protection under EU legislation; and while this isn't strictly true, much ink and air has been expended on the pros and cons in the argument. <br>What everybody does agree on, however, is that the current EU regime is ambiguous and inconsistent, with the result that one EU member state may grant a patent over an idea that would be refused by another member state. The European Commission has, therefore, attempted to solve the problems by proposing new legislation ' with what success remains to be seen.
ISP Liability In Canada: Need Real And Substantial Connection
In June, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its judgment in <i>Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers</i>. This landmark ruling, colloquially known as the Tariff 22 decision, read together with the SCC's decision in <i>Galerie d'Art du Petit-Champlain v. Theberge</i> and <i>CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada</i>, clarifies the current state of Canadian copyright law as it relates to activities occurring over the Internet. In particular, the decision describes the potential liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) in the context of Copyright Act.
Offline ' And Happy To Be There
For many people, going online is the first step in buying anything. <br>Yet, some firms refuse to sell online. Sound odd ' behind the times? On its face, perhaps, but sound business reasons explain such "backward" behavior ' and they're the same reasons why many brick-and-mortar businesses choose not to accept phone or mail orders.
