Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Neurologists who testify in court are coming under tighter scrutiny by medical authorities seeking to weed out unqualified witnesses from the courtroom. In a move that has irked plaintiffs' attorneys, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) recently revamped its 16-year-old guidelines regarding expert witness testimony by neurologists. The new guidelines were formally adopted earlier this year, and went into effect Jan. 10.
Features
The latest news of interest to you and your practice.
In last month's issue, we discussed how suits seeking damages for the wrongful deaths of cryopreserved pre-embryos are, at present, generally doomed to failure. Unless state legislatures change the definitions of the word "person" in their wrongful death statutes, courts in the several states are going to remain reluctant to extend the availability of wrongful death recovery to what are, arguably, merely potential "persons." The outcome on this issue in our illustrative case, <i>Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona</i>, proved no exception to the rule. However, the Jeters -- who had had their cryopreserved pre-embryos apparently lost by the clinic charged with preserving them -- did prevail in their fight to reinstate their suit on several other grounds. Although based on application of Arizona law, the Jeters' successful arguments on appeal could be used, with some tweaking, in other jurisdictions when reproductive assistance caregivers are accused of failing to act with proper care.
The blind allegiance to what I call the "fool's gold standard" lives on. Anyone with even a passing interest in bioethics knows it is unethical to conduct a double blind placebo controlled trial where standard therapy exists, except under limited circumstances. The exceptions are where: 1) there is no risk of harm if the patient forgoes treatment during the placebo phase such as in a trial for a drug that seeks to cure hair loss or impotence; 2) the standard therapy carries such severe side effects that patients might choose to avoid it; or 3) the standard therapy is otherwise of questionable efficacy. Still, sponsors and researches continue to design and conduct such trials, providing the familiar excuse: "The FDA made us do it."
Features
There has been much discussion of the ethics and liability issues created by recent advances in reproductive science. While fertility treatments allow couples that might otherwise not be able to conceive or carry a baby to term create much-wanted families, fertility clinics and the health care professionals working in them are dealing with a highly emotional issue. When patients don't get the results they wanted -- particularly when mistakes are made -- the chances of being sued run high.
Features
Recent developments of importance to you and your practice.
As blanket occupational exemptions for jury duty become a relic, litigators are split on whether there is a need for specific jury instructions to keep jurors from relying on their expertise in evidentiary matters. This issue tends to be particularly troubling for medical malpractice attorneys, as the pool of potential jurors with knowledge of medical issues -- doctors, nurses, physical therapists, etc. -- is so large. One court system -- New York's - instructs professionals to keep their expertise outside of the jury room. No other court currently singles out professional jury-deliberation conduct in jury instructions.
Features
For medical device manufacturers, federal preemption can be a powerful defense to state tort claims. Although there is some split of authority, most federal courts of appeals that have addressed the issue have held that when a medical device reaches the market via the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) rigorous "premarket approval" (PMA) process, many state common law claims are expressly preempted by the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) of 1976.