Tort Reform

In recent years, many states have enacted punitive damage limitations on medical malpractice actions to help doctors, nurses and other health care workers stay in business and to stem the tide of medical insurer defections from high-risk states to states offering lower exposure to loss. However, depending on the way the punitive damage cap provisions are written, states may or may not be affording health care workers and insurers the protections they intended to give. Case in point: <i>Johannesen v. Salem Hospital</i>, 336 Or. 211, 82 P.3d 139 (2003). In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a decision that broadens the scope of punitive damages claims against health care providers in Oregon beyond those that the legislature presumably intended.

17 minute readNovember 02, 2004 at 07:35 AM
By
Ellen M. Voss
Tort Reform

In recent years, many states have enacted punitive damage limitations on medical malpractice actions to help doctors, nurses and other health care workers stay in business and to stem the

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • 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
Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

Using AI Without Waiving Privilege: Lessons from United States v. Heppner

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), United States v. Heppner, has generated outsized commentary suggesting that the use of generative AI tools may jeopardize attorney-client privilege. A closer reading shows something far less dramatic.

March 01, 2026

2025 State Privacy Roundup: Key Trends and California Developments to Watch In 2026

The 2025 legislative cycle marked a pivotal year in U.S. privacy law, defined not only by continued nationwide expansion into AI) governance, children’s and teen privacy and online safety, as well as emerging data categories. In this article, we detail what enterprises need to be prepared for in 2026 and explain why we believe next year will be a watershed period for consumer privacy in the U.S.

March 01, 2026

The Google Illusion: Why Search Results Are Not Due Diligence

Every decision to onboard a client, partner, lateral hire, contractor, consultant or expert witness carries risk. Yet despite the increasing complexity of that risk, many firms continue to rely on onboarding practices that have not kept pace with the digital world in which their clients and people operate. The result is a widening gap between how risk actually manifests today and how it is assessed at the point of onboarding.

March 01, 2026

Analyzing AI Transactions

Understanding the “not written by people” feature of AI software is the best lens for viewing AI transactions. The fact that an AI is not a legal entity, prompts the proper legal analysis of AI transactions.

March 01, 2026

Now Hearing the Case of Generative AI v. Traditional Machine Learning

A great debate seems to be rearing its head–is it better to conduct document review with traditional machine learning or with generative AI? This article examines traditional machine learning and generative AI in the context of review for production in litigation matters. While each party seeks to improve efficiency and defensibility, they differ meaningfully in workflow, transparency, human involvement, and overall impact on legal practice.

March 01, 2026