Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Your ethics questions answered by the expert.
In a somewhat surprising 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Congress had abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted the Family Medical Leave Act and that therefore, state workers are entitled to the protection of that statute. In so ruling, the Court characterized Congress' goals in enacting the FMLA as protecting against gender-based discrimination in the workplace and eliminating stereotypes related to child-rearing and family care issues. As such, the Court concluded that challenges to the constitutionality of the FMLA warranted heightened scrutiny.
A class action brought on behalf of 15,000 present and former members of Bloomingdale's commissioned sales force was certified under New York Labor Law '193 based on a claim that Bloomingdale's inappropriately made deductions from the commissions credited to the sales force for merchandise returned by customers. <i>Jacobs v. Bloomingdale's, Inc.</i> Index No. 17283/96 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co. 5/03) (Taylor, J.S.C.)
Contrary to the <i>Mejia</i> court's analysis, patients do not generally choose an emergency room in reliance on any belief about the doctors' employment or agency relationship with the hospital. They may choose the hospital based on terms of their insurance plan, or the hospital's geographic location. But nobody can seriously suggest that if a patient were confronted with a neon sign in the hospital waiting room declaring the doctors to be independent contractors whose conduct is not attributable to the hospital, he or she would turn around and look elsewhere to find a hospital with employee doctors.
As the federal government and more and more states move toward capping non-economic damages in medical-malpractice actions, actual economic damages take on a new importance: Will economic damages by themselves, absent a large award for pain and suffering, justify taking a case that may cost $100,000 or more to present?
Features
Can fear of cancer be litigated? And if so, what is the potential impact on the med mal community? On March 10 the U.S. Supreme Court announced a decision in <i>Norfolk and Western Railway Co. v. Ayers</i>, 123 S.Ct. 1210 (2003), in which it ruled by a five to four vote that railway workers who suffer from asbestosis would be allowed to recover damages for fear of asbestos-related cancer. Rail-worker plaintiffs would still bear the burden of proof that their fear was 'genuine and serious,' but the Supreme Court did not specify how such evidence would be demonstrated or refuted. This article considers whether the <i>Ayers decision</i> could extend to medical malpractice litigation.
Features
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
Whether you represent the father or the mother in a custody dispute, every attorney has an obligation, professionally, ethically, and morally, to make certain that the children involved in a case are protected. Some practitioners find it difficult to protect the child's interest, while at the same time being expected to advocate properly on behalf of one parent in the custody matter. After all, to represent a parent zealously may entail necessary action that could subject the child to psychological evaluations, interviews by the judge, and other litigation-related participation. Forcing a child to play an active role in a custody matter can cause him/her lifelong scars.