Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Faced with rising litigation costs and unpredictable juries, it is understandable that many product liability litigants ' on both sides of the courtroom ' eventually think about settlement in lieu of trial. In cases involving catastrophic injury, however, staggering medical expense liens often control the feasibility of reaching an acceptable agreement. Some lawyers have long dreaded settlement negotiations when Medicare is the major lien holder, because Medicare can be the proverbial 800-pound gorilla at the table. Unfortunately, with the enactment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MPDIMA) the gorilla has only gotten bigger. To have any chance at taming the Medicare beast, lawyers on both sides need to understand the reach of a Medicare lien, as well as potential avenues for reducing or eliminating Medicare's interest in the settlement proceeds.
Features
A well-intentioned journalist, who is not a physician, recently wrote an article in <i>The New York Times</i> asking why medical mistakes occur. There, the author advanced a theory that if doctors were better paid, there would be higher quality of care, and fewer misdiagnoses. This theory assumes that doctors are mainly motivated by money, which, in this author's opinion, is not the primary impetus for a doctor, or any other medical practitioner, to do the job right. The law defines medical negligence simply: the failure to do what a reasonably prudent practitioner would do in the same or similar circumstances. Medical negligence, in a legal sense, does not differ from other forms of negligence: When a person ' doctor or layman ' departs from the accepted standard of care, that is negligent conduct. Numerically, this vagary translates to mean that a practitioner has not deviated from the applicable standard of care if he or she does 'that which 51% of practitioners would do.'
Features
On Jan. 17, the U.S Supreme Court announced its decision in <i>Gonzalez v. Oregon</i>, upholding Oregon's state law on so-called 'physician-assisted suicide.' The Supreme Court decision rejected an effort by the Justice Department to punish physicians who assist terminally ill patients with prescriptions of lethal doses of controlled medications pursuant to the Oregon Death With Dignity Act (ODWDA). The case had been widely followed as it proceeded through the federal court system, and is now expected to invite similar legislation as other states consider enacting assisted-death laws. In this article, we consider the state and federal legislation that was placed at loggerheads by an administrative directive of the Attorney General of the United States; the decisions of the lower federal courts presented with the issue; and the ultimate disposition of the matter by the Supreme Court.
Features
After months of preparation, the lawyers at Sanders, Simpson & Fletcher had their case almost ready for trial. The Springfield, MO, plaintiffs' firm of 11 lawyers had worked hard to fine-tune the civil case. Their client had the potential of being awarded significant damages. But the allegation -- sexual misconduct against a church pastor -- was tricky. Would the facts of the case resonate well with jurors?
The New Jersey Supreme Court, in <i>Creanga v. Jardal</i>, 185 N.J. 345 (2005), recently held that a treating physician's expert testimony on proximate cause is admissible if based on a reasonably conducted differential diagnosis that rules out plausible alternative causes of a plaintiff's injuries. However, a treating physician's expert testimony will be struck as a net opinion when the physician's differential diagnosis is based on subjective beliefs instead of the patient's medical history and diagnostic testing.
Features
In the midst of the medical liability crisis and a nationwide movement toward tort reform, including caps on non-economic damages, a new player has appeared on the scene. The "Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act," S. 1337, was introduced to the U.S. Senate in July 2005 in a bipartisan effort led by Sens. Michael Enzi (R-WY) and Max Baucus (D-MT). The stated purposes of the Act are: "1) to restore fairness and reliability to the medical justice system by fostering alternatives to current medical tort litigation that promote early disclosure of health care errors and provide prompt, fair, and reasonable compensation to patients who are injured by health care errors; 2) to promote patient safety through early disclosure of health care errors; and 3) to support and assist States in developing such alternatives."
Features
What do you get when you cross Court TV with the Food Channel? One answer: a recipe for a multi-million dollar jury verdict! Drug giant Merck will not see such blended TV programming, but it may have seen stars after getting hit with a $253 million jury award on Aug. 19, 2005. The first product liability trial against its Cox-2 inhibitor drug Vioxx in Angleton, TX, in August, 2005 produced a quarter-billion dollar award, $229 million of which was for punitive damages. Merck plans a vigorous appeal on multiple grounds. (Reportedly, grounds for appeal include: 1) letting in testimony from unqualified experts; 2) letting in testimony not based on reliable scientific evidence; 3) allowing irrelevant but prejudicial evidence in against Merck; and 4) letting in an undisclosed "surprise" witness against Merck.) Even pro-plaintiff observers concede that the award will likely drop to "only" $26 million due to recent Texas tort reform caps on punitive damages. (Merck fared better in its second and third Vioxx trials, which ended with a defense verdict and hung jury, respectively. Three Vioxx cases down -- only about 5998 to go!)