<b><i>Cases Built on Anger</i></b> Million-dollar medical malpractice verdicts have doubled since 1996. They now make up 8% of all malpractice claims actually paid. This, at the same time that verdicts for the defense remain the norm and the number of lawsuit filings has actually fallen somewhat. Why? The quick - and partially correct - answer is that the cost of health care has skyrocketed.
Does a patient lose the right to invoke the physician/patient privilege when he or she has seen a physician for an independent medial examination (IME) rather than for treatment? The question may come up in the aftermath of a workers' compensation or medical malpractice case if questions of possible fraud on the claimant's part surface, and you may be asked to advise your client as to his or her rights.
Any physician who has had the unfortunate experience of being the target of a medical malpractice lawsuit bemoans the attention paid by the plaintiff's lawyers to precise record keeping. Most physicians pride themselves on their medical skills, not their neat note taking. They will tell you that entries in a medical record are meant to enhance the care and treatment rendered to a patient, not to be read by lawyers or juries many years later.
The exclusive remedy for patients injured due to medical malpractice by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment is through the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Under the FTCA, the United States allows claims to be made against it in certain circumstances. However, because the FTCA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, strict compliance with the requirements for filing is necessary in order to preserve your clients' rights to recovery.
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
