Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search


Verdicts
August 27, 2003
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
State News
August 27, 2003
Interesting cases from around the country.
Why the <i>Mejia </i>Opinion Is Troubling
August 27, 2003
Contrary to the <i>Mejia</i> court's analysis, patients do not generally choose an emergency room in reliance on any belief about the doctors' employment or agency relationship with the hospital. They may choose the hospital based on terms of their insurance plan, or the hospital's geographic location. But nobody can seriously suggest that if a patient were confronted with a neon sign in the hospital waiting room declaring the doctors to be independent contractors whose conduct is not attributable to the hospital, he or she would turn around and look elsewhere to find a hospital with employee doctors.
Should You Take the Case?
August 27, 2003
As the federal government and more and more states move toward capping non-economic damages in medical-malpractice actions, actual economic damages take on a new importance: Will economic damages by themselves, absent a large award for pain and suffering, justify taking a case that may cost $100,000 or more to present?
'Fear of Cancer': A Med Mal Nightmare?
August 27, 2003
Can fear of cancer be litigated? And if so, what is the potential impact on the med mal community? On March 10 the U.S. Supreme Court announced a decision in <i>Norfolk and Western Railway Co. v. Ayers</i>, 123 S.Ct. 1210 (2003), in which it ruled by a five to four vote that railway workers who suffer from asbestosis would be allowed to recover damages for fear of asbestos-related cancer. Rail-worker plaintiffs would still bear the burden of proof that their fear was 'genuine and serious,' but the Supreme Court did not specify how such evidence would be demonstrated or refuted. This article considers whether the <i>Ayers decision</i> could extend to medical malpractice litigation.
Litigation
August 27, 2003
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
'Kids Count'
August 27, 2003
Whether you represent the father or the mother in a custody dispute, every attorney has an obligation, professionally, ethically, and morally, to make certain that the children involved in a case are protected. Some practitioners find it difficult to protect the child's interest, while at the same time being expected to advocate properly on behalf of one parent in the custody matter. After all, to represent a parent zealously may entail necessary action that could subject the child to psychological evaluations, interviews by the judge, and other litigation-related participation. Forcing a child to play an active role in a custody matter can cause him/her lifelong scars.
Defining 'Best Interest'
August 27, 2003
The 'best interest of the child' standard reverberates through countless judicial opinions involving children. Despite steady criticism of its indeterminacy and vagueness, it persists and even expands its legal domain.
Can a Woman Father a Child?
August 27, 2003
When can a woman become a father? According to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, when she is a lesbian. In a recent case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court applied estoppel to impose child support obligations on a woman who 'fathered' five children. Specifically, the court affirmed an order requiring the woman to pay child support to her former lesbian partner after she sought and won custody rights to the children born during their relationship.
Bit Parts
Recent developments in entertainment law.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Private Equity Valuation: A Significant Decision
    Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
    Read More ›
  • Meet the Lawyer Working on Inclusion Rider Language
    At the Oscars in March, Best Actress winner Frances McDormand made “inclusion rider” go viral. But Kalpana Kotagal, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers &amp; Toll had already worked for months to write the language for such provisions. Kotagal was developing legal language for contract provisions that Hollywood's elite could use to require studios and other partners to employ diverse workers on set.
    Read More ›