A medical malpractice and wrongful death suit filed Thursday in Illinois federal court alleges medical staff at James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in Chicago negligently prescribed antipsychotic medication to an Iraq war veteran suffering from PTSD, which purportedly contributed to his suicide.
The Eighth Circuit on Thursday affirmed a trial court's decision to reduce a $17 million jury verdict in a medical malpractice case to $1.75 million pursuant to a Nebraska tort reform law, finding that the state’s cap on damages did not violate the patient’s constitutional rights.
The New York Legislature advanced a bill that would delay the running clock on cancer patients’ medical malpractice claims to the date the alleged injury was discovered rather than the date the alleged negligence took place, with both houses voting the bill through on Wednesday.
A Texas appellate court announced Thursday it had changed its mind about dismissing a suit against a nursing home, ruling that the children of a deceased patient should be able to amend their expert report and overturning its own December decision to nix the case.
A New Hampshire hospital doesn't have to pay deductibles to access coverage under a Steadfast Insurance Co. policy for lawsuits over a hepatitis C outbreak caused by a former medical technician's misconduct, the state high court ruled Thursday, finding that the policy is ambiguous and must be construed in the hospital's favor.
A Florida woman can’t file a suit alleging an orthopedic surgeon had performed an unnecessary surgery after she injured her foot, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday, as her expert affidavits did not come from a similarly specialized medical professional.
An Oregon state appellate court on Wednesday revived a patient’s malpractice suit accusing the Oregon Health & Science University of botching a dental surgery, ruling that the statute of limitations on the case had been extended when the dentist provided the patient with free dental care.
A Florida appeals court ruled that a trial court erred in upholding a provision of a claims bill limiting a law firm's contingency fee in a medical malpractice suit, ruling that the claims bill provision was an unconstitutional impairment of the fee agreement between the parties.
A Florida federal judge on Tuesday declined to determine whether a $1.75 million confidential settlement that was allegedly disclosed to third parties is enforceable, saying the court doesn't have jurisdiction because the deal was made in arbitration and those proceedings have not concluded.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor discusses her views on writing dissents and the change she hopes they inspire in the law, in the second of two articles based on an exclusive interview with the 111th justice.
A Florida appeals court on Wednesday overturned a trial judge’s decision to allow interviews of two jurors regarding potential misconduct following a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case, saying the parents of an injured infant failed to meet the three requirements for granting juror interviews.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that physicians must disclose, and obtain a patient's consent, whenever a nondoctor participates in a surgery, reversing summary judgment for a gynecologist and her assistant in an allegedly botched hysterectomy.
A North Carolina appeals court on Tuesday ordered a new trial on damages in a successful suit against a neurosurgeon in connection with several allegedly botched spinal surgeries, saying the trial judge was right to toss the jury’s finding that the patient contributed to her own death but wrong to reduce the original award.
A Nevada federal judge has signed off on a $5 million settlement between a military family and the United States in a suit accusing an Air Force hospital of negligence while caring for a woman in labor, causing her baby to be born with liver and brain damage.
Just one week after the estate of a military veteran, who committed suicide due to a Veterans Affairs hospital’s alleged negligence, asked a South Carolina federal judge to impose sanctions on the agency for evidence fraud, the federal government agreed to a $900,000 settlement, according to court documents filed Monday.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a standard governing nursing home abuse suits was too restrictive and runs contrary to the aims of state law, reviving a suit that alleges nursing home neglect caused a patient’s death from sepsis.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court revived a malpractice suit against a Geisinger Health System physician over a botched brain surgery, ruling that physicians must take personal responsibility for obtaining the informed consent of their patients in advance of medical procedures.
Attorneys defending health care providers and insurance companies against medical malpractice suits usually aren't given a choice of which cases to take and often grapple with insurance companies disputing bills or otherwise second-guessing them, prompting some to consider making the switch to the plaintiffs' side. Here, onetime defense attorneys who successfully took the leap share four signs it was time for a change.
A neurologist indicted for the alleged sexual assault of patients can’t assert constitutional violations against New Jersey prosecutors and police officers, the Third Circuit ruled Monday, saying a federal court can abstain from adjudicating a case amid an ongoing state criminal proceeding.
An Illinois federal judge on Monday increased by $1.5 million a $29.7 million bench award to a man who claimed that egregiously negligent treatment at a federally funded health clinic led to his kidney failure.
When it comes to medical marijuana, health care providers are in an awkward — but not impossible — spot. In many cases, state and federal laws governing medical marijuana are in direct conflict, leaving providers who want to encourage their patients to use marijuana on shaky legal ground, says Michaela Poizner of Baker Donelson.
With the conclusion of this U.S. Supreme Court term just around the corner, the guessing game around Justice Anthony Kennedy’s possible retirement is reaching a crescendo. Yet the speculation does more than fuel bookmakers’ odds. It draws attention to his pivotal role as the court’s swing vote, says Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice.
One way to combat juror confusion and boredom is to allow jurors to ask witnesses questions. No federal evidentiary or court rule prohibits it, and every federal circuit court to address the practice has held it permissible, say Stephen Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and Dr. Roy Futterman of the NYU School of Law Civil Jury Project.
In the midst of the worst drug crisis in American history, two key developments this month may have far-reaching impacts on both the underlying liability claims as well as the insurers to whom the defendants are looking to finance hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure, says Adam Fleischer of BatesCarey LLP.
Since the California Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Howell v. Hamilton Meats, the case has significantly shaped the litigation landscape, including many high-profile opinions and jury verdicts in its aftermath. It also has significant implications for the Affordable Care Act and plaintiffs’ litigation strategy, says Robert Tyson Jr. of Tyson & Mendes LLP.
Last month, the American Bar Association published revised guidance regarding an attorney’s duty to protect sensitive client material in light of recent high-profile hacks. The first step in compliance is understanding how your data is being stored and accessed. There are three key questions you should ask your firm’s information technology staff and/or external solution vendors, says Nick Holda of PreVeil.
One of the easiest ways to improve civil jury trials is to give juries substantive instructions on the law at the beginning of the trial rather than at its conclusion. It is also one of the most popular proposals we are recommending, say Stephen Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and Dr. Roy Futterman of the NYU School of Law Civil Jury Project.
Lateral candidates looking to make the last — or perhaps only — move of their career cannot afford to just stand by and let a law firm’s vetting process unfold on its own, says Howard Flack, a partner at Volta Talent Strategies who previously led lateral partner recruiting and integration at Hogan Lovells.
One frequently hears from leading malpractice insurers that one of the highest risk categories for law firms is that of lateral partners not sufficiently vetted during the recruitment process, says Howard Flack, a partner at Volta Talent Strategies Inc. who previously led lateral partner recruiting and integration at Hogan Lovells.
This is the second in a series of articles discussing ideas proposed by the NYU School of Law Civil Jury Project to resuscitate the American jury trial. In this article, Stephen Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and Dr. Roy Futterman argue for setting early and strict time limits in civil jury trials.