National news of interest to you and your practice.

Features

Few health-care providers confronting the reality of trial proceedings in cases involving serious injury or death fail to recognize the possibility of a multi-million dollar verdict being returned in favor of the plaintiff. In 2003, 15 of the top 100 verdicts reported nationwide by Verdictsearch resulted from medical malpractice actions, with the range falling between an award of approximately $19,465,000 to an incredible $112 million in a case involving the alleged failure to diagnose an aneurysm, which led to the patient's quadriplegia and significant brain damage.

National news of importance to you and your practice.

Features

The United States Pharmacopeia (USP), an organization that, among other things, operates MEDMARX, the national, Internet-accessible anonymous reporting database that hospitals and health care systems may voluntarily use to track and trend medication errors, last month published 10 recommendations for cutting down medication errors in hospitals and health care facilities.

Features

Earlier this year, the federal government lost an attempt to deny insurance coverage to doctors who -- in their capacity as sole owners of their own corporations -- signed contracts with the United States to provide health care to patients at a non-profit clinic. When the government attempted to tell the doctors -- after the doctors had been sued for malpractice -- that they were not eligible for coverage, the doctors fought back in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In Parts One and Two of this article, we discussed the strategies involved in deciding when to question the opposing party's expert; during preliminary <i>voir dire</i> or during cross examination. We noted that, in a jury trial, it is usually prudent to wait until cross-examination to attack the expert, so that the jury can see where the holes in the witness's qualifications and conclusions are. But sometimes, questioning during <i>voir dire</i> is preferable, especially when the result is likely to be the witness disqualification to testify as an expert.

Recently, the California Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) issued a decision that confirms and clarifies the broad scope of trial court authority under California Evidence Code section 801 to exclude expert testimony that lacks adequate foundation. (<i>Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc.</i> (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1108 [8 Cal. Rptr.3d 363].)

Recent rulings of significance to your practice.