A Maryland appeals court on Thursday revived a woman’s lawsuit alleging that an improperly performed hip replacement surgery forced her to undergo several additional corrective procedures, ruling that questions remained as to when the woman could have learned that her continuing hip problems may have been due to surgeon negligence.
A New Jersey hospital and two rehabilitation facilities have been slapped with a medical malpractice complaint in state court by a woman claiming her husband, who had undergone spinal surgery, developed serious bedsores that led to his death last year.
A Kentucky appellate panel on Friday affirmed the dismissal of a suit accusing a hospital of unlawfully firing a nurse for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act by disclosing a patient’s confidential health information, rejecting the nurse’s argument that the disclosure was incidental.
A Kentucky appellate court on Friday overturned a lower court's dismissal of a stroke patient’s suit against the doctor who allegedly ignored his symptoms, saying the need for prompt treatment of strokes was common knowledge and thus raised a question of causation in his case.
A bid to have the U.S. Supreme Court review a Florida statute giving patients access to hospital incident reports and a looming California ruling affecting doctors on workers' compensation panels are among the medical malpractice cases attorneys will be following in the second half of 2017. Here, Law360 takes a look at four pending cases.
The federal government has agreed to settle a mother’s lawsuit alleging that her child suffered arm paralysis due to improper delivery and post-delivery care for $225,000, according to a filing in New Jersey federal court.
A Wisconsin appellate court on Thursday reversed a jury verdict in favor of a doctor claiming he was unlawfully fired following a health clinic operator’s internal probe of allegations of inappropriate touching of patients, saying his contract allows for termination without cause and therefore the suit should’ve been tossed.
A Minnesota federal judge ruled Wednesday that Mayo Clinic Rochester can present evidence at a medical malpractice trial that the patient was previously convicted of forgery and theft during his time as an attorney, saying court rules allow the use of such evidence when a witness’ honesty is relevant.
The Virginia Supreme Court on Thursday declined to revive a suit accusing a doctor of worsening a patient’s mental health disorders by making inappropriate sexual comments during an examination, ruling that the patient had not provided sufficient expert testimony to establish a case in light of her pre-existing conditions.
The United States was hit with a negligence suit in New York federal court on Thursday over a federally funded Bronx clinic’s alleged failure to diagnose a cancer on an infant’s foot, requiring part of the child’s leg to be amputated.
A Pennsylvania state appellate court decided Wednesday that a medical malpractice suit filed in Philadelphia should not be transferred to another county, overturning a trial court decision to move the suit and ruling the case could stay because a doctor who allegedly failed to send a timely diagnosis for the patient was working at a Philadelphia hospital.
A Pennsylvania man pled guilty in federal court Wednesday to false statement charges after being accused of performing flawed genetic diagnostic tests for 124 cancer patients.
A medical malpractice suit filed by a longtime Michigan State University law professor who died last year can move forward, a state appellate panel said Tuesday, ruling that one of two theories of medical negligence was supported by the evidence.
A Pennsylvania appeals court on Tuesday tossed a $4.7 million verdict awarded to a man who received negligent medical treatment from a doctor and Temple University Hospital resulting in finger amputations, saying a new damages trial is necessary because the trial judge should’ve allowed evidence of a prior criminal conviction.
A Pennsylvania Superior Court panel, returning to a discovery fight over litigation stemming from a hospital’s allegations that doctors engaged in unnecessary procedures, affirmed for the second time Wednesday a finding that attorney-client privilege does not apply to a company's email to its media consultants.
A Washington state appeals court on Tuesday restored $3.5 million to a family’s previously $16.7 million jury verdict over claims that a hospital failed to properly inform a pregnant woman showing symptoms of the swine flu of the condition, finding that an earlier settlement with another health care provider shouldn’t have been counted against the jury award.
A patient who has accused Good Shepherd Hospital of medical malpractice for discharging him from the facility after neglecting to remove an IV from his arm asked the Texas Supreme Court on Monday to revive his lawsuit, arguing his expert report was sufficient to allow the case to proceed.
The estate of a deceased cancer patient has filed a wrongful death suit in New Jersey court against the makers of a surgical tool and the hospital that used it to treat her uterine fibroids, saying that they both should have known the device could cause her to develop cancer.
A West Virginia federal court on Tuesday ended a woman’s suit accusing a federally funded clinic of failing to diagnose her breast cancer in time, ruling that the expert report provided alongside the suit didn’t explain how staff at the clinic fell short of their obligations.
An Illinois woman and her husband on Monday filed a $12 million federal suit against a doctor she claims had spread cancer through her body during a hysterectomy.
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.
In its most recent petition advocating mandatory disclosure of litigation finance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce simply rehashes the same arguments from its previous failed efforts to convince the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the dire implications of undisclosed funding relationships, say members of IMF Bentham Ltd.
If we truly believe in providing litigants with a jury of one’s peers, we must adopt strategies to ensure that parties and their representatives have a say in selecting their jury. When only judges participate, the result is a less representative and less fair cross section of the community, say Stephen Susman, Richard Jolly and Roy Futterman of NYU School of Law's Civil Jury Project.
Lawyers faced with clients who can’t or won’t listen to their advice must consider that the core of this risky decision may be a person's inability or refusal to relinquish a prime identity in times of uncertainty, say dispute resolution experts Robert Creo and Selina Shultz.
An arbitration agreement that is properly drafted and executed can provide businesses, specifically those in the long-term care industry, with a cost-effective route to dispute resolution. However, even with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kindred Nursing Centers v. Clark, businesses should be aware of state court views regarding the enforceability of these agreements, say Eugene Giotto and Gabrielle Lee of Cozen O'Connor.