Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Drug & Device News
Unnecessary Test Leads to Plaintiff Award
A plaintiff injured by a dye used to diagnose her medical compliant has agreed to settle for less than the $3.62 million recovery she was awarded by a jury. The 52-year-old plaintiff in Johnson v. UMDNJ went to the Emergency Room of Newark, NJ's University Hospital, complaining of leg pain and vaginal bleeding. She was administered a contrasting dye prior to undergoing a CAT scan. The patient was allergic to the dye, which caused her blood pressure to spike, which resulted in a brain aneurysm. Although she immediately underwent surgery, the plaintiff was left with some paralysis and with cognitive deficits that now prevent her from returning to her teaching position at Rutgers University. She brought suit against the hospital, claiming, among other things, that the CAT scan was unnecessary. UMDNJ countered that the scan was necessary as a means to to rule out a stomach abscess, and that the plaintiff's aneurysm was caused by a previous medical condition. No diagnosis of the plaintiff's original complaints was ever made. The plaintiff was awarded $3.62 million, but she entered into a settlement agreement with the hospital for a lesser, undisclosed, amount.
This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters 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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.