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.
Plaintiffs Move to Consolidate Power Morcellator Cases
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?