Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Med Mal Verdict 'Shocked the Conscience'
In a Philadelphia case in which a defendant doctor testified at trial that he believed there was a 20% chance that his patient's cancer had returned but that he did not do anything to confirm his suspicion until approximately 14 months later, the Superior Court ruled that a jury verdict for the defendant so 'shocked the conscience' as to merit a new trial.
A three-judge panel characterized the physician's inaction as 'negligent failure to aggressively treat his patient.' The panel also said the defendant's failure to order a biopsy after noting possibly cancerous changes to the plaintiff patient's right breast substantially increased the woman's risk of harm, and decreased her chances of remaining cancer-free for a 5-year period from perhaps 90% to zero.
Judges Stephen A. McEwen Jr., Mary Jane Bowes and Patrick R. Tamilia also concluded that now-U.S. District Judge Legrome D. Davis, who presided over the trial, had improperly charged the jury on a concept ' 'mere error in judgment' ' not supported by the evidence. 'The trial court instructed the jury that the
failure to order appropriate diagnostic testing would be negligence, but a 'mere error in judgment' in failing to order the appropriate test would not,' Tamilia wrote for the court panel. 'Under the instructions given, the jury was required to conclude it was at least permitted to choose error in judgment or negligence in failing to order appropriate diagnostic testing.'
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.
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.