Features

On Feb. 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark ruling, overturning precedent only two decades after it held that Canadian citizens have the right to end their lives, but if done with the assistance of a physician, that physician could be held liable. This highly anticipated decision is expected to encourage the efforts of right-to-die advocates in the United States and abroad.

Columns & Departments

A manufacturer goes to court to challenge the FDA's restrictions on off-label drug use promotion.

Features

The statute of limitations applicable to medical malpractice cases in New York is one of the most unjust in the country. It can, and too often does, expire before victims have even the ability to know that they have been injured. That is because, other than foreign objects left in a patient's body, New York does not have a rule that the statute begins to run at the time the patient discovers, or reasonably should discover, that he or she suffered injury as a result of malpractice. Almost all other jurisdictions have such a rule, and its absence in New York has had harsh consequences for countless malpractice victims. Efforts to pass legislation to end this injustice have repeatedly come up short.

In-depth discussion of a case in which a court must decide if a particular med mal policy will survive a doctor's fraud.

Columns & Departments

Analysis of the latest key rulings.

Features

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 25 upheld federal health insurance subsidies for an estimated 6.4 million moderate and low-income Americans.

Columns & Departments

A Georgia hospital is appealing a lost medical malpractice case by arguing that the jurors should not have been permitted to feel the plaintiff's hands to see if one of them was cold ' an indication that he was suffering from the pain syndrome he complained of.

What happens to the plaintiff who learns late in the lawsuit process that his expert is not up to snuff? The Supreme Court of Georgia recently clarified the answer to this question for one set of plaintiffs whose originally proferred expert was deemed ineligible to offer a valid opinion.