Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Medical Provider Not Liable for Drug Overdose
A jury in New York recently rendered a defense verdict to a physician's assistant who prescribed medication to an alcoholic who died after taking that medication in conjunction with alcohol. Bee v. Hita Sharma as Guardian Ad-Litem of Mohan Sharma, MD and Cindy Callahan, RPA-C, No. 8258/12.
On March 3, 2011, 49-year-old Christopher Bee died from a combined consumption of alcoholic beverages and a muscle relaxant, Soma, according to a coroner's report. The drug was intended to relieve pain from a rib injury and had been prescribed by a physician's assistant, Cindy Callahan. Bee's widow, Laura Bee, claimed that the drug should not have been given to her husband, who was an alocholic.
Ms. Bee, acting individually and as administrator of her husband's estate, sued Callahan and her employer, Dr. Mohan Sharma, alleging malpractice. She claimed that Mr. Bee, who had repeatedly battled alcoholism, should not have been prescribed Soma. Bee's estate sought recovery of wrongful-death damages that included $14,000 for the cost of Bee's funeral, $500,000 for his younger son's loss of parental guidance and $250,000 for his older son's loss of parental guidance. Bee's wife sought recovery of $250,000 for loss of consortium.
The plaintiffs' expert surgeon said that an alcoholic would be susceptible to an accidental overdose and that Sharma's practice's records indicated Bee's repeated treatment for alcoholism. Ms. Bee claimed that Sharma knew her husband had previously mixed alcoholic beverages and prescribed medication.
The defense's expert, a physician's assistant, said that alcoholism does not contraindicate a patient's use of Soma. The defense's expert internist agreed. He reviewed the coroner's analysis of the alcoholic content of Bee's blood, and said the concentration, 0.1, would not have impaired Bee's understanding of the amount of Soma that he was ingesting. A coroner estimated that Bee had consumed as many as 30 tablets of Soma. The defense's expert toxicologist noted that Callahan had recommended daily doses of as many as four tablets of Soma, and said the recommended dosage would not have harmed Bee.
The jury rendered a defense verdict.
'
Medical Provider Not Liable for Drug Overdose
A jury in
On March 3, 2011, 49-year-old Christopher Bee died from a combined consumption of alcoholic beverages and a muscle relaxant, Soma, according to a coroner's report. The drug was intended to relieve pain from a rib injury and had been prescribed by a physician's assistant, Cindy Callahan. Bee's widow, Laura Bee, claimed that the drug should not have been given to her husband, who was an alocholic.
Ms. Bee, acting individually and as administrator of her husband's estate, sued Callahan and her employer, Dr. Mohan Sharma, alleging malpractice. She claimed that Mr. Bee, who had repeatedly battled alcoholism, should not have been prescribed Soma. Bee's estate sought recovery of wrongful-death damages that included $14,000 for the cost of Bee's funeral, $500,000 for his younger son's loss of parental guidance and $250,000 for his older son's loss of parental guidance. Bee's wife sought recovery of $250,000 for loss of consortium.
The plaintiffs' expert surgeon said that an alcoholic would be susceptible to an accidental overdose and that Sharma's practice's records indicated Bee's repeated treatment for alcoholism. Ms. Bee claimed that Sharma knew her husband had previously mixed alcoholic beverages and prescribed medication.
The defense's expert, a physician's assistant, said that alcoholism does not contraindicate a patient's use of Soma. The defense's expert internist agreed. He reviewed the coroner's analysis of the alcoholic content of Bee's blood, and said the concentration, 0.1, would not have impaired Bee's understanding of the amount of Soma that he was ingesting. A coroner estimated that Bee had consumed as many as 30 tablets of Soma. The defense's expert toxicologist noted that Callahan had recommended daily doses of as many as four tablets of Soma, and said the recommended dosage would not have harmed Bee.
The jury rendered a defense verdict.
'
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
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.
Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.