Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Attorney Must Pay for Delays
Judge Gary Sharpe of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has told an attorney representing a medical malpractice/wrongful death plaintiff that he alone ' and not his client ' must pay the sanctions imposed for his failure to timely respond to opposing counsel's discovery demands. Plaintiff attorney Jonathan Fairbanks blamed personal problems for his professional lapses over the course of several months, which had led the federal government to move for dismissal of the claims the medical malpractice plaintiff raised in Toborg. v. United States, 1:11-CV-150. Although the judge decided that this would be too harsh a sanction to place on a blameless plaintiff, he also concluded that it was clear the government had, or soon would, suffer financial harm as a result of Fairbanks' disregard for the discovery schedule. Accordingly, attorney Fairbanks was ordered to reimburse the government for the expenses it has or will incur as a result of his conduct, and he cannot seek to recoup that amount from his client.
KS High Court Upholds State Cap on Med-Mal Damages
On Oct. 5, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the legislatively-imposed limit on damages for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases to $250,000 is legal under the state's constitution. The 109-page decision came in a case brought by plaintiff Amy Miller, whose surgeon removed the wrong ovary. Although the jury had awarded her damages of $760,000, the trial judge reduced that amount, largely due to the damage cap imposed by the Kansas legislature in 1988. Arguments that the cap is now unfair because it had not kept up with inflation were to no avail, with the Supreme Court concluding that although it found “the legislature's failure to increase the $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages over the more than 20 years since it first set that amount” to be “troubling,” it was not ready to say “at this time that the legislature's failure to increase the statutory cap has sufficiently diluted the substitute remedy to render the present cap clearly unconstitutional.”
NJ May Join OR and WA in Allowing Assisted Suicide
New Jersey Assemblyman John Burzichelli has introduced a bill that would amend the state's laws by de-criminalizing assisted suicide in some instances. Currently, any health care provider or other person who attempts to help another person to commit suicide may be convicted of a second-degree crime if the person dies, and a fourth-degree crime if the suicide attempt is unsuccessful. If the proposed law is passed, doctors will be permitted to give life-ending drugs to patients with less than six months to live, for self-administration.
Attorney Must Pay for Delays
Judge Gary Sharpe of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
KS High Court Upholds State Cap on Med-Mal Damages
On Oct. 5, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the legislatively-imposed limit on damages for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases to $250,000 is legal under the state's constitution. The 109-page decision came in a case brought by plaintiff Amy Miller, whose surgeon removed the wrong ovary. Although the jury had awarded her damages of $760,000, the trial judge reduced that amount, largely due to the damage cap imposed by the Kansas legislature in 1988. Arguments that the cap is now unfair because it had not kept up with inflation were to no avail, with the Supreme Court concluding that although it found “the legislature's failure to increase the $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages over the more than 20 years since it first set that amount” to be “troubling,” it was not ready to say “at this time that the legislature's failure to increase the statutory cap has sufficiently diluted the substitute remedy to render the present cap clearly unconstitutional.”
NJ May Join OR and WA in Allowing Assisted Suicide
New Jersey Assemblyman John Burzichelli has introduced a bill that would amend the state's laws by de-criminalizing assisted suicide in some instances. Currently, any health care provider or other person who attempts to help another person to commit suicide may be convicted of a second-degree crime if the person dies, and a fourth-degree crime if the suicide attempt is unsuccessful. If the proposed law is passed, doctors will be permitted to give life-ending drugs to patients with less than six months to live, for self-administration.
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.
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.
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?