Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
Features
The latest news of interest to your practice.
When medical malpractice defense counsel first heard of the new privacy regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (the HIPAA privacy regulations), most probably thought that these detailed and complicated laws would affect only their regulatory health care colleagues. How great an impact the HIPAA privacy regulations will have on medical malpractice litigation, in general, is yet to be seen, but it is clear that these regulations have immediately affected discovery of medical records in med-mal cases.
Features
In the last 2 months, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued two reports detailing the findings of its studies into the medical malpractice insurance crisis and its effects on medical care. The studies were conducted at the request of Congress, which wanted to learn what the root causes of the rising medical malpractice insurance premiums were and what effects these rising costs were having on the public's access to health care. With this information, it intends to consider legislation similar to some states' tort reform laws.
Features
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
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.