Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Kumho for Clinicians in the Courtroom
Two Supreme Court rulings, Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), have had a profound effect on the treatment of expert testimony in the courts. In 1993, the Supreme Court, in Daubert, articulated guidelines for admissibility of scientific expertise as testimony. Later, in 1999, in Kumho, the Court focused on the admissibility of clinical expertise as testimony.
More recently there has been increasing recognition of the inconsistency of trial courts in their construction and articulation of evidentiary standards to medical testimony. One proposed remedy is that 'Physicians should respond by correcting courts' misinterpretations of medical practice and assisting in the development of legal standards that encourage thoughtful and informed consideration of medical testimony by judges and juries.' Kassirer JP, Cecil JS: Inconsistency in Evidentiary Standards for Medical Testimony: Disorder in the Courts. 288 JAMA 1382, Sept. 2002.
However, in actual practice, the integrity of a clinical expert's testimony does not depend on the clinician alone. Rather, both the understanding of the retaining attorney as to what is needed to formulate an objective expert opinion, as well as the clinician's dedication to doing so, are essential. Therefore, it is important to improve communication between testifying clinical experts and the attorneys who retained them in the service of providing the finders-of-fact with the most valid and reliable clinical expertise.
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.