Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Search


Jumping Through Hoops: Discovery of Records under HIPAA
September 01, 2003
When medical malpractice defense counsel first heard of the new privacy regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (the HIPAA privacy regulations), most probably thought that these detailed and complicated laws would affect only their regulatory health care colleagues. How great an impact the HIPAA privacy regulations will have on medical malpractice litigation, in general, is yet to be seen, but it is clear that these regulations have immediately affected discovery of medical records in med-mal cases.
GAO Reports Look at Med-Mal Insurance Crisis
September 01, 2003
In the last 2 months, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued two reports detailing the findings of its studies into the medical malpractice insurance crisis and its effects on medical care. The studies were conducted at the request of Congress, which wanted to learn what the root causes of the rising medical malpractice insurance premiums were and what effects these rising costs were having on the public's access to health care. With this information, it intends to consider legislation similar to some states' tort reform laws.
Verdicts
September 01, 2003
The latest cases of interest to your practice.
Med Mal News
September 01, 2003
The latest news of interest to your practice.
John Gaal's Ethics Corner
September 01, 2003
Your ethics questions answered by the expert.
A Word to the Wise
September 01, 2003
Plaintiff seeks to admit testimony relating to a similar claim of sex discrimination raised by a co-worker. She also notes that in a department of 20, there are only five women. Is the co-worker's testimony admissible? Is testimony relating to the office's demographics probative?
Be Wary of Rule 54(d)'s Costs Provision
September 01, 2003
<b><i>Costs Are Awardable, and Are Being Awarded, Against Plaintiffs</i></b> Plaintiffs' employment lawyers contemplating bringing Title VII or other discrimination suits have long felt secure in the knowledge that, even if they lose at trial or at the summary judgment stage, their client will not be assessed attorney's fees. This may not be the case.
Decisions of Interest
September 01, 2003
Recent decisions of interest to you and your practice.
Protection under Participation Clause Extended to Alleged Harrassers
September 01, 2003
Alleged harassers may not be retaliated against for participating in the investigation of harassment against them, according to the Second Circuit in a ruling of first impression. <i>Deravin v. Kerik</i>, 335 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2003). In doing so, the court held that "defending oneself against charges of discrimination - to the extent that such defense involves actual participation in a Title VII proceeding or investigation - is 'protected activity' within the scope" of the participation clause of Title VII.
Decisions of Interest
September 01, 2003
Recent cases of interest to you and your practice.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next Frontier
    Most experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.
    Read More ›
  • In the Spotlight
    On May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug &amp; Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.
    Read More ›