Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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 D'Orazio v. Parlee & Tatem Radiologic Associates Ltd., 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.
Attorney Naomi Plakins of Plakins Rieffel & Ray in Doylestown, PA, represented defendant radiologist Henry Randolph Tatem III as well as defendant company Parlee & Tatem Radiologic Associates. Plakins characterized the case as a battle of the experts since the plaintiff and the defendants relied on experts to establish the applicable standard of care as well as causation.
According to defendants' trial brief, D'Orazio underwent a series of routine mammograms from 1988 to 1998, when she was diagnosed with infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Lobular carcinoma is a relatively rare form of breast cancer, accounting for about 10% of all cases. It spreads by proceeding in a single-file fashion, resulting in fingerlike projections into normal tissue. The 1988 mammogram did not show any suspicious abnormality, the defendants' trial brief stated. Similarly, a 1990 mammogram, conducted at defendant Frankford Hospital-Torresdale Division in Philadelphia and interpreted by defendant radiologist Robert Bronstein, showed no suspicious abnormalities or changes, according to defendants.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.