Using Daubert to Defeat Causation in the Delayed Diagnosis Claim
The old maxim, "the earlier the treatment, the better the outcome" has been a longtime staple in plaintiffs' collection of so-called "expert medical opinions." Let's face it -- the notion that earlier treatment is preferable, while imprecise, seems like a logical conclusion for most of us. However, the Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in <i>McDowell v. Brown</i>, 392 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), establishes that such general medical principles, which are typically based on no more than the expert physician's common-sense and anecdotal experience, are far too speculative to overcome an evidentiary challenge pursuant to <i>Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmeceuticals, Inc.</i>, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and therefore fail to establish causation in a medical negligence case. Part One of a Two-Part Article.
Corporate Compliance And How It Relates To Litigation Data-Management
If we counted a penny for every general counsel, chief information officer or information-technology director who laments the passing of the regulatory-agency laissez faire policies of old, we'd give Donald Trump a run for his money. The simple truth is, there is no going back -- Sarbanes-Oxley, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Safe Harbor Protection Act and European Data Protection Directive -- they're all here to stay.
Hotline
Evidence of Post-Accident Repairs PermittedThe Third Circuit has ruled that under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, a plaintiff who sues only the manufacturer…
The Increasing Importance of Corporate Minutes
As corporate scandals continue to dominate the financial press, the actions taken by members of corporate boards of directors are under attack by the civil class action bar, the Securities and Exchange Commission, federal prosecutors, and state regulators. As the activities of board members are increasingly subjected to challenge in civil and even criminal proceedings, the existence of a clear record of the board's activities has become an increasingly critical element in establishing a corporation's decision-making process. Thus, boards of directors should take a fresh look at how their decision-making process is described in corporate minutes to ensure that the minutes will permit the directors to defend the actions taken in the boardroom, as well as to demonstrate that the directors have performed their oversight duties with appropriate care.
New FLSA Regulations And Recent Opinion Letters By The DOL
The Department of Labor's new Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (Wage and Hour Regulations) regulations, which went into effect Aug. 23, 2004, are an attempt to modernize pay scales, increase employee coverage, and clarify rules for employers. The salary levels had not been updated since 1975. The Korean War had not yet begun the last time the primary duties regulations were revised, and until last August, the regulations included such anachronistic titles as "legmen," "straw bosses," and "key punch operators." Nevertheless, if one were to judge merely by the sheer number of opinion letters the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued since the regulations went into effect, it would seem that the new regulations have generated as much confusion as the previous regulations.
Collecting D&O Insurance Proceeds
In the race between a debtor and a third party to recover the proceeds of a directors' and officers' insurance policy (a "D&O Policy"), it is critical that the debtor employ the correct strategy for the applicable jurisdiction in order to enjoin its competitor from reaching the proceeds first. Choosing the wrong strategy could mean the difference between collecting tens of millions of dollars and obtaining a judgment not worth the paper upon which it is written. Indeed, the proceeds of the D&O Policy ("D&O Proceeds") may be the largest asset of the estate. As a result, a successful reorganization could depend upon filing in the right jurisdiction and implementing the correct litigation strategy.
Inside <i>Grokster</i>
The Internet industry has had a little time to sit back and examine the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the <i>Grokster</i> case, pondering its true meaning and its impact on technology and software developers as well as the entertainment industry. In this virtual roundtable discussion, members of <i>Internet Law & Strategy</i>'s Board of Editors and other Internet law experts chime in with their thoughts. I think you'll find these comments insightful and raise the issues that the industry faces in the wake of <i>Grokster</i>.
Inducement Theory In <i>Grokster </i>Leaves Unanswered Questions
In <i>MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster</i>, the Supreme Court decided that the defendants could be held liable for copyright infringement perpetrated by the users of their respective software. Rather than clarifying the "significant non-infringing use" standard from <i>Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.</i>, to determine whether the defendants could be held liable for distributing a product with knowledge that it could be used to infringe, the Court utilized an alternative approach of finding liability. Turning to common law precedent and patent law, the unanimous Court held that liability may be based on purposeful, culpable expression under an inducement theory of secondary infringement. While some of the potential implications of this decision can be predicted, the full effect will not likely be clear for some time.
'Unanimous' Vote In <i>Grokster</i> Has Split Views
The future direction of digital technologies was on the line when the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in March over peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software. And few were predicting that the Justices would easily reach their decision. Given the difficult copyright law and policy issues in the case, it seemed highly unlikely that the Justices could all agree. But 3 months after oral arguments, the Court surprised many observers by issuing a unanimous decision ' at least as to the main holding.
A Bow to Innovation: The Supreme Court's Decision in MGM v. Grokster
The Supreme Court's recent decision in <i>Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.</i>, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (2005) is noteworthy for the Court's decision to sidestep modifying the standard that the Court set in the <i>Sony</i> case in 1984 as to when a product distributor can be liable for infringing uses of its product. Although the Supreme Court was faced with compelling arguments from copyright owners and the technology industry alike both for and against modifying the standard in <i>Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios</i>, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), it ultimately found that Grokster and its co-defendant StreamCast could be liable for infringing downloads, not because they distributed a product that was used to infringe copyrights, but because they took the additional step of actively inducing their users to download copyrighted material. In so doing, the Supreme Court avoided deciding whether it was appropriate that a mere distributor of a product "capable of substantial noninfringing use" should avoid liability even when its product is being used for massive copyright infringement.
