Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Sacred cows make great steaks, as one wit quipped. The usual way of doing things is being stood on its head and, in the realm of medical malpractice claims at least, is being replaced in many cases by fresh approaches and claim resolution templates. Specifically, historical norms of adversarial claim approaches are being supplanted by 'apology programs,' which receive increasing interest and publicity.
Features
People injured by a drug or medical device often sue not only their medical caregivers and the hospitals where the devices were implanted, but also the drug or device's manufacturers. Smart move, but there may be other avenues for recovery that should be explored. There are many players in the process that brings a drug or device to the market, and it may prove valuable to question whether any of these had a role in causing the claimant's injury and whether they can be reached for recovery.
In addition to claims for medical negligence, medical professionals and the facilities for which they work may be exposed to claims for breach of contract based on a theory that patients are third-party beneficiaries of contracts between medical facilities and their physicians. Such actions may lead to liability for physicians who have no direct relationship with the patient at issue, but careful drafting of agreements between facilities such as nursing homes and hospitals and their physicians may prevent patients and their lawyers from bringing successful third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims.
Wire services are reporting that Merck & Co. has agreed to pay close to $5 billion to settle claims that its Vioxx painkiller caused heart attacks and strokes.
The latest happenings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
Last year, pharmaceutical companies reportedly spent $4.5 billion on direct advertising to consumers, or about 400 times more than they spent 20 years ago. Drug company spending on advertising to consumers is increasing twice as fast as spending on promotions to physicians or on the research and development of new drugs. Given this exponential growth in direct-to-consumer advertising, it is hardly surprising that prescription drug makers' traditional immunity from consumer 'failure-to-warn' claims has increasingly come under assault.
Features
The authors are both members of the American Law Institutes (ALI), an institution that's been around since 1923. Membership is made up of judges, practicing attorneys and legal scholars from both the United States and the international legal community. The ALI employs a deliberative process to gain insights into its various members' understanding and opinions of the law, then it drafts and publishes Restatements of the Law, model codes, and legal studies to promote, as the ALI Web site home page states, 'the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work.' In this article, they take issue with a recent ALI Tentative Draft on the expert testimony standard.