Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Peer Review: How Privileged?
How privileged, how impenetrable, is the peer review privilege? In Fox v. Kramer, 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? The court concluded that the answer is no; a plaintiff is not permitted to use a subpoena to accomplish indirectly that which is “forbidden directly.” But that did not necessarily mean that all information brought out in medical peer-review committee proceedings was barred from introduction in court.
The plaintiff in Fox was a physician's wife who underwent a colonoscopy procedure under a form of anesthesia known as “conscious sedation,” in which pain- and anxiety-relieving medication is given. The anesthesia does not render the patient completely unconscious, permitting her to express discomfort or change positions. During the procedure, Mrs. Fox experienced pain. She moaned or asked the physicians to wait, or stop a moment; they did so, administered more medication, and after she indicated that it was all right to continue, completed the procedure. The plaintiff recalled afterward that she moaned and asked the physicians to “wait a minute,” but otherwise did not remember anything about the procedure except two or three periods of consciousness, of 2 or 3 seconds each, during which she felt pain.
In the recovery area, the plaintiff dreamed that she screamed during the colonoscopy, begged the physicians to stop, and fought them off. In the succeeding days, she began to believe that she had been abused during the colonoscopy. She developed a fear of medical personnel and suffered from nightmares. Dr. and Mrs. Fox complained to the hospital.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.