A New York appeals court on Thursday reversed a jury’s defense verdict and ordered a new trial in a suit accusing a hospital of being responsible for an intensive care unit patient’s bed sores, ruling that the judge failed to give the jury clarifying instructions in response to their question about the definition of “care and treatment.”
A lawyer was not personally responsible for paying the fees of a consulting medical expert in an underlying brain injury lawsuit, an Illinois appeals court has ruled, finding that the expert’s contract only obligated the attorney to hold any settlement or judgment money from the litigation while a court decided its distribution.
A Pennsylvania federal judge ruled Wednesday that the question of whether or not parents were surprised by their child’s death was “beyond the scope” when considering whether to dismiss the parents’ claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the child's doctors.
A Louisiana appellate court on Wednesday added $1.2 million in special damages to a $400,000 award in a medical malpractice case, saying a surgeon's negligence directly caused the patient to lose his chance of a better outcome, which warranted special damages.
In a razor-thin vote, the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a tort reform bill that would impose a nationwide cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases and would institute several other measures purportedly designed to lower health care costs.
A former professor of surgery at Rutgers University’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey has filed suit against the school, its university hospital and several staff members, claiming that he was wrongfully fired for taking medical leave.
The Southeastern firm Hall Booth Smith PC has added a former shareholder with international giant Greenberg Traurig as a partner focusing on medical malpractice and product liability in its Atlanta office.
Neal Katyal seemingly tried to educate Justice Samuel Alito about a well-known Latin phrase, Justice Sonia Sotomayor prayed aloud that she wouldn’t be assigned a mind-numbing opinion, and Justice Elena Kagan needled a lawyer who confused her with another justice. Here, Law360 wraps up the top moments of legal levity from the latest high court term.
Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year, a new U.S. Supreme Court justice has emerged as the most talkative at oral arguments — and the titleholder should come as no surprise to court watchers.
The justices’ level of engagement at oral argument can provide a crucial window into their thinking on an issue, but interpreting what that might mean for how they’ll rule is an elusive art. Here, Law360 looks at the sessions in which each justice engaged the most.
A Georgia health provider can’t be held liable for the firings of two nurses who had earlier raised concerns about shift staffing, a state appeals court ruled on Tuesday, finding their disclosures were about internal procedures that fell outside the scope of a state whistleblower law.
An Ohio appellate panel ruled Tuesday that a plastic surgeon can't delay suspension of his medical license due to alleged negligent patient treatment during two liposuction procedures, saying the physician didn't prove the discipline would cause "unusual hardship" pending the resolution of his appeal.
A Tennessee appellate panel on Tuesday tossed a suit accusing doctors of botching a patient's medical procedures which caused a bowel obstruction and led to her death, rejecting the patient’s family's argument that the doctor fraudulently concealed facts regarding the patient’s injury.
In Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas seems to have found a U.S. Supreme Court justice after his own heart. The court’s newest member and its most silent one cast identical votes in case after case this year, at times taking positions deemed more conservative than those of their fellow Republican appointees on the court.
“Concurring opinion” can feel like a misnomer when a justice departs from — or downright slams — the reasoning of the majority. Here are the opinions from the latest U.S. Supreme Court term in which the biggest divisions bore the label of agreement.
While there were fewer dissents coming from the U.S. Supreme Court during its October 2016 term than in years past, justices still managed to come up with creative disses and blistering attacks when they were on the losing side. Here, Law360 highlights the term’s top dissents.
An Ohio appellate panel has dismissed a suit accusing a vascular surgeon of botching a man’s angioplasty, which purportedly caused his death, saying the patient’s estate failed to properly counter the physician’s assertion that he did nothing wrong.
A Kentucky woman told the Sixth Circuit on Monday that her lawsuit claiming a medical staffing company was responsible for injuries she suffered due to a physician’s assistant and doctor’s allegedly negligent replacement of a feeding tube was improperly dismissed, as the company didn’t prove the individuals were independent contractors.
A stroke patient will be able to proceed with most of his medical malpractice suit against a Georgia hospital and its staff after an appellate court determined that a trial judge was largely correct to refuse to toss the suit.
A Kentucky appellate panel on Friday upheld a decision to end a medical negligence lawsuit brought by a woman who claims three medical professionals missed a diagnosis of her Hodgkin’s lymphoma, ruling her expert witness lacked the requisite knowledge to provide a proper critique.