Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Features

Litigating Awareness: Non-Economic Damages and the Unconscious Plaintiff

Roseann Lynn Brenner & Gary M. Every

In most medical negligence cases, the most difficult damages for an attorney to forecast are non-economic ones such as pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. This difficulty arises from the nature of the damages themselves ' pain, suffering and enjoyment are inherently subjective experiences.

Features

Surviving the Medical Malpractice Claim

Kevin M. Quinley

Successful defense of a medical malpractice case is a team effort. While the defendant physician is the focal point, a key team member is the defense attorney who will defend the physician and the standard of care exhibited in the case.

Features

Limiting Internet Medical Malpractice Liability

Jonathan Bick

Medical practices use the Internet for posting physicians' biographical information, linking websites featuring medical information and hosting medical question-and-answer blogs, among others. However, even this type of interaction with a health-care provider can lead to a medical malpractice lawsuit.

Columns & Departments

Med Mal News

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

A look at recent rulings of interest.

Columns & Departments

Verdicts

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Analysis of recent litigation.

Columns & Departments

Med Mal News

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

In-depth analysis of a recent ruling in New Jersey.

Features

Electronic Health Records

Linda S. Crawford

Patients who remain in an integrated Electronic Health Record (EHR) system benefit from better access to integrated medical information across specialties and locations. However, full benefits are not seen in all cases where such systems have been implemented. What might be causing the problem?

Features

Florida's Statutory Cap on Non-Economic Damages Deemed Unconstitutional

Michael D. Brophy

Two years passed from the time the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in <I>Estate of McCall v. United States of America</I> until announcement of its decision on March 13, 2014. The constitutionality of limits on medical malpractice awards, one of the benchmarks of conservative tort reform, had divided state and federal courts across the country.

Destroying Evidence?

Gabriel Z. Reynoso

This may come as a surprise, but neither the California Civil Discovery Act nor any case law interpreting the same specifically prohibits the intentional destruction of evidence prior to a lawsuit being filed ' regardless of whether such litigation is being contemplated or even probable.

Columns & Departments

Drug & Device News

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Discussion of several key news items of importance to legal practitioners.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next Frontier
    Most experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.
    Read More ›
  • In the Spotlight
    On May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug &amp; Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.
    Read More ›