Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
GA Court: New Expert Can Be Substituted In, Even at Late Date
In recent years, as affidavit-of-merit statutes have proliferated, the number of medical malpractice plaintiffs who have been prevented from pursuing their claims has multiplied. These laws generally require that, in order to maintain an action for medical malpractice, plaintiffs must first obtain the opinion of a medical expert to the effect that they may have suffered harm due to a medical practitioner's failure to adhere to the standard of care. These laws were promulgated in an effort to curb the filing of frivolous lawsuits, and they have worked for that purpose. But sometimes, legitimate claims are also thwarted by circumstances that may not seem fair to plaintiffs, particularly as many states have tightened the requirements for qualification of experts in med-mal cases.
Where once many types of medical professionals might have been deemed qualified to offer an opinion concerning the care a plaintiff received, many states now require a more precise overlap of a defendant's and expert's qualifications. Disputes often arise concerning whether a plaintiff's chosen “expert” is in fact qualified to offer an opinion on the defendant care provider's treatment of the patient. Some states are quite strict on the issue of qualifications, requiring that the expert practice in the exact sub-specialty of medicine as the defendant, while others are more lenient.
So, what happens to the plaintiff who, through lack of knowledge, laziness or unfortunate accident, learns late in the lawsuit process that his expert is not up to snuff? Is the case dead in the water, or can it be salvaged? The Supreme Court of Georgia recently clarified the answer to this question for one set of plaintiffs whose originally proferred expert was deemed ineligible to offer a valid opinion. A new expert was produced, but not before the statute of limitations for bringing the claim had run. Would the plaintiffs be out of luck?
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.