Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In New York: A Recent Decision On Continuous Treatment
The statute of limitations applicable to medical malpractice cases in New York is one of the most unjust in the country. It can, and too often does, expire before victims have even the ability to know that they have been injured. That is because, other than foreign objects left in a patient's body, New York does not have a rule that the statute begins to run at the time the patient discovers, or reasonably should discover, that he or she suffered injury as a result of malpractice. Almost all other jurisdictions have such a rule, and its absence in New York has had harsh consequences for countless malpractice victims. Efforts to pass legislation to end this injustice have repeatedly come up short.
One ameliorating provision of New York's statute is its codification of the continuous treatment doctrine, which takes on added importance due to the absence of a discovery rule. Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR) 214-a provides that a malpractice action must be commenced within two and a half years of “the act, omission or failure complained of or the last treatment where there is continuous treatment for the same illness, injury or condition which gave rise to the said act, omission or failure ' .”
One recent Appellate Division decision on the subject of the continuous treatment doctrine in New York stands out as meriting extended discussion.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?