Features

National news of interest to the medical malpractice community.

Physical unavailability of evidence can influence litigation, but for various reasons, the courts will not always draw an adverse inference against the party that has lost or destroyed such evidence. One of these reasons is simple relevance. A case in point is <i>Kanyi v. United States</i>, 2001 U.S. Dist LEXIS 19814, in which the plaintiff appealed a Magistrate Judge's order denying a motion for an adverse inference charge against defendants. The court found that even though defendants had destroyed evidence, their actions were at most merely negligent, and besides, the evidence in question was immaterial to the case.

The latest rulings of importance to you and your practice.

Congress has enacted several federal statutes to protect and advance the interests of those with mental illness or developmental disabilities, and of other mentally handicapped persons who do not meet the statutory criteria for being either mentally ill or developmentally disabled. These statutes were enacted partly in response to concerns about the mistreatment of the mentally handicapped in institutions, including both public and private hospitals, nursing homes, and correctional facilities. Not surprisingly, therefore, the agencies constituted to enforce these laws have been granted broad powers to monitor and investigate conditions in facilities that provide treatment and care for the mentally handicapped. In recent years, there has been significant litigation concerning the degree to which that investigatory authority includes a right of access to institutions' peer review and quality assurance records, which otherwise would be protected by state privilege statutes.

A plaintiff who alleges that lack of oxygen during a botched delivery caused a child's cerebral palsy might have a new obstacle to proving causation, if juries give credence to a recent report commissioned by two major medical organizations.

FloridaWin for Woman Claiming Abuse During Pap SmearA woman who claimed that a doctor molested her during a pap smear was awarded $280,000 by a Florida jury on February 27, 2003. Kathy Murphy, a 49-year-old painter and massage therapist, claimed that Dr. William Charles Leach, of Naples, FL, asked her to help perform a 'new pap smear technique' where she was required to massage her vagina. She claimed that the doctor masturbated near her. Leach did not attend the trial, and the plaintiff obtained a default judgment.

Doctors are increasingly making use of physician assistants (PAs) in their practices. In order to avoid liability, it has become imperative that physicians who do use these assistants establish and follow consistent protocols. This is important not only for the efficient and orderly functioning of the office, but to ensure that government regulations are met and that the patients fully understand the role of these professionals. Patients must be told that PAs are available in the practice, but that they as patients have the right to choose examination and treatment by either the assistant or the physician. Only following these protocols can the medical practitioner ensure the orderly function of the office, the satisfaction of the patients, and some degree of protection from lawsuits engendered by a less-than-perfect medical outcome.

Features

In a Philadelphia case in which a defendant doctor testified at trial that he believed there was a 20% chance that his patient's cancer had returned but that he did not do anything to confirm his suspicion until approximately 14 months later, the Superior Court ruled that a jury verdict for the defendant so 'shocked the conscience' as to merit a new trial.