Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy

The news that the drug Vytorin' may not be very effective for its advertised purpose has created a crisis for its manufacturers. Critics claim the results of a clinical trial of the medication's efficacy were released months, if not years, after the drug companies knew their product was not what they had originally claimed. Now, government oversight agencies are investigating the possibility that the drug's manufacturers are guilty of insider trading, medical test manipulation and/or false advertising. In addition, shareholders are upset and consumers are suing.

A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal explores the relationship between the doctrine of informed consent and the intentional tort of battery. The case, Saxena v. Goffney, which was decided Jan. 24, illustrates the importance to both plaintiff and defense teams of keeping the two theories straight, not only in argument but in formulating the jury instructions. Failure to do so could result in reversal on appeal.

In light of the uncertain legal terrain, New York State practitioners and those in states with unsettled law on the issue should proceed with caution if considering advising a client to enter into a contingency fee agreement with a medico-legal service for, inter alia, locating expert witnesses.

Who's doing what; who's going where.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

The latest happenings you need to know.

Medical battery is generally defined as a touching that the patient has not consented to. This occurs when the care provider steps far outside the agreed-upon scope of treatment or, more infrequently, omits to obtain any consent to treatment at all. The New Jersey Supreme Court defined the concept in Perna v. Pirozzi: 'If the claim is characterized as a failure to obtain informed consent, the operation may constitute an act of medical malpractice; if, however, it is viewed as a failure to obtain any consent, it is better classified as a battery.'

Internet telemedicine is plagued by concern for patients whose physicians prescribe medication without a face-to-face examination. Consequently, state boards of medical examiners and state legislatures throughout the country have initiated disciplinary hearings and legislation to limit a physician's ability to practice medicine without prior hands-on contact with a patient.