Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Search


After 100 Years, Hospital Liability Takes a Sharp Turn
You are ordinarily not liable for the misdeeds of others, right? Sure, you can be vicariously liable for certain conduct of employees and agents, but not others you may associate with, such as independent contractors. Except sometimes. And now, if you're a hospital that allows independent contractor physicians to treat patients at your facility, "sometimes" is presumptively "all the time." That is the rule laid down in the recent decision, <i>Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino</i> (2002), 99 Cal.App.4th 1448.
Defense Verdict in Breast Cancer Suit
A jury ruled for the defense in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff had undergone a double mastectomy after learning that invasive cancer originating in her left breast had spread to 24 nearby lymph nodes. After a 9-day trial before Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Sheldon Jelin in <i>D'Orazio v. Parlee &amp; Tatem Radiologic Associates Ltd.</i>, jurors deliberated for 2 1/2 days before delivering a verdict on April 27. The verdict relieved three radiologists and two hospitals of liability for plaintiff Shirley W. D'Orazio's alleged reduced chances of survival due to the advanced stage of the disease at the time of diagnosis.
Peer Review: How Privileged?
How privileged, how impenetrable, is the peer review privilege? In <i>Fox v. Kramer</i>, 22 Cal. 4th 531, 994 P.2d 343 (Cal. 2000), the Supreme Court of California considered this narrow issue: Could plaintiffs Wendy Fox and her husband, Dr. Richard B. Fox, subpoena a doctor to give expert testimony or refer at trial to his draft preliminary report when his conclusions were based on hospital peer review committee records reviewed in the course of his official duties for a public agency?
Verdicts
The latest rulings of importance to your practice.
John Gaal's Ethics Corner
Your ethics questions answered by the expert.
Punitive Damages Take a Beating
The first half of 2003 has not been kind to friends of punitive damages. No matter the setting, they have taken a beating.
Proposed Amendments to the FLSA: A Primer
The most substantial changes in more than 50 years to the way employers determine whether they are obligated to pay overtime compensation could well become reality. The United States Department of Labor (DOL) issued proposed revisions to its regulations on the "white-collar" exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on March 31, 2003. If enacted in a version close to their present form, the way you do business could change considerably.
A Word To The Wise
It is often said that bad facts make bad law. A corollary to that principle may be that notorious clients make for problematic verdicts. Such was the case in <i>Bell v. Helmsley</i>, 2003 WL 1453108 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Cty. 3/4/03), a trial dominated by the ever-entertaining presence of the Queen of Mean, Leona Helmsley.
Sex Harassment Case Nets EEOC $5.4 Million Dollar Settlement
Eight registered nurses who underwent pre-employment medical examinations were instead sexually harassed, according to a proposed Consent Decree submitted to Judge Leonard Sand by the EEOC and Lutheran Medical Center. Under the terms of the proposed settlement reached by the parties, the medical center has agreed to pay $5.425 million dollars to compensate the nurses and other female nurses similarly harassed.
Decisions of Interest
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • The 'Sophisticated Insured' Defense
    A majority of courts consider the <i>contra proferentem</i> doctrine to be a pillar of insurance law. The doctrine requires ambiguous terms in an insurance policy to be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage for the insured. A prominent rationale behind the doctrine is that insurance policies are usually standard-form contracts drafted entirely by insurers.
    Read More ›
  • Abandoned and Unused Cables: A Hidden Liability Under the 2002 National Electric Code
    In an effort to minimize the release of toxic gasses from cables in the event of fire, the 2002 version of the National Electric Code ("NEC"), promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, sets forth new guidelines requiring that abandoned cables must be removed from buildings unless they are located in metal raceways or tagged "For Future Use." While the NEC is not, in itself, binding law, most jurisdictions in the United States adopt the NEC by reference in their state or local building and fire codes. Thus, noncompliance with the recent NEC guidelines will likely mean that a building is in violation of a building or fire code. If so, the building owner may also be in breach of agreements with tenants and lenders and may be jeopardizing its fire insurance coverage. Even in jurisdictions where the 2002 NEC has not been adopted, it may be argued that the guidelines represent the standard of reasonable care and could result in tort liability for the landlord if toxic gasses from abandoned cables are emitted in a fire. With these potential liabilities in mind, this article discusses: 1) how to address the abandoned wires and cables currently located within the risers, ceilings and other areas of properties, and 2) additional considerations in the placement and removal of telecommunications cables going forward.
    Read More ›