A South Carolina jury has awarded $10 million to the estate of a woman who allegedly died after doctors detected kidney cancer on her scans but failed to treat the cancer or tell her that she had cancer for years.
Two Texas Supreme Court justices said during oral argument Wednesday they are bothered that a “technicality” in the form of an allegedly defective expert report could wipe out a medical malpractice claim with “obvious merit” brought by a patient who was blinded during cataract surgery.
A Missouri state appellate court reversed a jury verdict in favor of a doctor who claimed she had been fired for reporting a fellow doctor’s alleged misconduct, ruling that the conduct the doctor reported was itself protected by state law and that the doctor thus could not be considered a whistleblower.
A New York appeals panel on Tuesday revived claims lodged against a doctor accused of perforating a woman’s bile duct, which purportedly caused liver failure, saying the patient’s estate and a co-defendant doctor who performed an initial procedure credibly claimed that the doctor was at fault.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up a case that ended in a $10.1 million jury verdict in favor of a woman who sued a Philadelphia hospital over her infant's delayed bacterial meningitis diagnosis, putting an end to a nearly two-year appeals process.
An Arizona jury has cleared a urologist of liability in a suit accusing him of failing to warn a man about the risks of kidney removal surgery, which purportedly contributed to the patient’s death, finding in favor of the doctor on the lone claim of wrongful death.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a case in which the North Carolina state Supreme Court ruled that a doctor could not enforce an arbitration agreement because he had breached his fiduciary duty by not properly informing the patient what he was signing.
A New York state appellate court declined Friday to revive a suit over prenatal care brought by a couple who lost their son an hour after birth, ruling that the law does not provide an avenue for the parents of a baby who was born alive to sue unless the mother suffered an independent injury as a result of the alleged medical malpractice.
A Pennsylvania appellate panel on Friday affirmed a jury’s decision to clear a hospital of negligently administering to an emergency room patient a drug that purportedly caused tissue and nerve damage, saying a juror’s alleged financial ties to the hospital didn’t warrant overturning the verdict.
A Tennessee appellate panel on Thursday upheld the dismissal of a suit accusing a hospital of negligent treatment that contributed to a patient’s death, finding the patient’s family failed to show he had been “adjudicated incompetent” at the time of death and thus the suit is time-barred.
A Texas appeals court has refused to toss a malpractice suit accusing two doctors of failing to test for or properly treat a woman suffering a heart attack, concluding the lower court rightly rejected objections to the woman’s medical experts.
The United States government shouldn’t have to face a medical malpractice lawsuit brought against a federally funded tribal wellness center over alleged botched root canal treatments, a California federal judge said Thursday, recommending the suit be tossed due to a lack of expert testimony.
A Texas state appellate court on Thursday threw out a neurosurgeon’s suit claiming that the hospital where he worked suspended him and reported him to the Texas Medical Board after he complained about a fellow doctor, ruling that the hospital’s interactions with the board fell under protected speech.
A patient suing a skilled nursing facility for ordinary negligence urged Maryland’s highest court on Thursday to revive her suit, arguing that her claim that a nurse dropped her while using a mechanical lift is not medical treatment and shouldn’t invoke state requirements for medical malpractice cases.
A mother who successfully sued a Nebraska hospital over her infant’s severe brain injury has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the state’s cap on medical malpractice damages, arguing that her right to a jury trial was violated.
The Florida Supreme Court opted on Thursday to suspend an attorney for one year, going beyond the recommended 60-day suspension, for soliciting the mother of a brain-injured child to be his client despite the fact that she had not sought legal representation.
An Iowa-based insurance company is seeking to limit coverage for a chiropractic office embroiled in a lawsuit over allegedly mishandled injections, contending that its insured can’t recoup that maximum value of the policy based on that claim alone, according to a complaint Wednesday in New Mexico federal court.
A New York state appellate court has tossed out claims against a New York City pain clinic and two anesthesiologists accused of causing a patient’s chronic pain condition during surgery, ruling that the patient’s experts had been unable to tie the clinic or the anesthesiologist to her symptoms.
The South Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday publicly reprimanded a hospital’s general counsel for serving as a patient’s legal guardian and conservator despite a conflict of interest, and for employing her son to perform repair work on the patient’s home without properly monitoring the work.
The New Jersey Appellate Division on Wednesday affirmed that a trial court judge properly barred the testimony of an expert witness in a medical malpractice case, finding the expert failed to establish a causal connection between the injury and the alleged malpractice.
Albert Einstein famously said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” That maxim applies to large companies that seek more value and diversity from their outside counsel by expecting big firms to change. There’s a simple solution to this problem, according to attorneys Margaret Cassidy, Sara Kropf and Ellen D. Marcus.
Payment collection delays have caused law firms to seek new options, one of which is litigation finance. In this context, litigation finance can offer alternative avenues to firms as they approach the end of a fiscal year or partnership distribution dates, says Travis Lenkner of Burford Capital LLC.
Imagine going to a restaurant and ordering your steak medium-rare. The steak arrives burned. You expect the kitchen to bring you another one properly done, right? And you don’t expect to pay for two steaks, do you? Paying a vendor for document review should be no different, says Lisa Prowse, an attorney and vice president at e-discovery firm BIA Inc.
Is the rising spate of opioid litigation comparable to the litigation that led to the mega-billion dollar settlement with Big Tobacco? According to ex-trial lawyer Richard Scruggs, who helped engineer the $248 billion tobacco settlement in the 1990s, the answer is "sort of."
Although the Trump administration has completed the vetting and confirmation of a cabinet and White House staff, thousands of senior positions remain unfilled throughout the executive branch. More than ever, people selected for those posts find themselves under close scrutiny, say Adam Raviv and Reginald Brown of WilmerHale.
Last month, New York state revoked a doctor's medical license based on a vague order issued by the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners that potentially accused the doctor of sexual misconduct. The nationwide pressure to dumb down such orders is one of the reasons why sexual predation upon patients has been so difficult to root out, says Thomas Keech, consultant to the Maryland State Board of Physicians.
In our recent survey of business of law professionals, nearly half of respondents said that who they collaborate with, inside their law firm, is different from five years ago, says Chris Cartrett of legal software provider Aderant.
Some lawyers tend to be overly aggressive, regarding law practice as a zero-sum game in which there are only winners and losers. The best response is to act professionally — separating the matter at hand from the personalities. But it is also important to show resolve and not be vulnerable to intimidation, says Alan Hoffman of Husch Blackwell LLP.
The range of possible and better fee agreements is wide. But such alternatives will become popular only if litigants confront the psychological tendencies shaping their existing fee arrangements, says J.B. Heaton, a partner at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP.
As judges become better educated about the complexities of collecting electronically stored information, in particular the inefficacy of keyword searching, they are increasingly skeptical of self-collection. And yet, for many good reasons (and a few bad ones), custodian self-collection is still prevalent in cases of all sizes and in all jurisdictions, says Alex Khoury of Balch & Bingham LLP.