A multimillion-dollar jury award was affirmed on Wednesday in a suit accusing an emergency room doctor of negligently treating a woman’s brain swelling, which purportedly caused her death, with an Ohio appeals court finding the evidence and expert testimony supported the verdict.
The parents of a man who died due to allegedly negligent emergency room treatment can’t get additional damages from Indiana’s Patient Compensation Fund, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday, saying evidence presented by the fund regarding the patient’s life expectancy was properly allowed.
An Iowa state appellate court ruled Wednesday that a patient’s estate, which claimed that the patient died from a lethal combination of drugs that should not have been prescribed, could not switch targets mid-suit, saying that the trial judge was right to say doing so would substantially change the case.
A Mississippi state appellate court declined to revive a suit accusing the University of Mississippi Medical Center of releasing a patient too early, saying the lower court judge was right to find the expert witness for the patient’s estate “unreliable” and to hand a win to the center during a bench trial.
An en banc Mississippi state appellate court said Tuesday that a nursing home cannot force a wrongful death suit into arbitration, ruling the patient’s wife did not have the authority to sign an arbitration agreement because the patient’s doctor had not directly stated the patient was unable to make decisions for himself.
The Supreme Court of Ohio on Tuesday ruled that the state’s “apology law” prevents a doctor’s admission of fault from being used in a medical malpractice suit if made in the context of an apology to the patient or family, resolving a split between Ohio appellate courts.
A Pennsylvania appeals court affirmed Tuesday a jury verdict clearing health care providers of failing to diagnose a man’s cancer, saying an “excessively rambling” appellate brief could’ve warranted dismissal of the appeal for violating court rules regarding word counts but was nonetheless without merit.
An Indiana appellate panel on Tuesday revived a suit accusing a doctor of botching the removal of a man’s cancerous rib, saying a court refiling fee that was not timely paid arose from a scheduling error that constituted “excusable neglect.”
The newly formed plaintiff advocacy firm DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC has a added veteran litigator with more than 25 years of trial experience as a partner in its Cleveland office.
A Chicago dermatologist convicted of passing off cosmetic procedures as medical treatments to insurance companies is not entitled to a new trial, an Illinois federal judge ruled Monday, saying that there was evidence to support a conviction and that a prosecution overstep had not resulted in an unfair trial.
New York state reached a $22 million settlement Friday with the family of boxer Magomed Abdusalamov in a personal injury suit over his handling by medical officials after a 2013 fight at Madison Square Garden, which left him with a devastating brain injury.
A Pennsylvania state appellate court on Friday denied a request from a patient’s estate for a second appeal after the panel agreed with the lower court that the suit, which accused a doctor and hospital of performing an unnecessary procedure, was time-barred.
A nurse who was convicted for impersonating a doctor to write herself prescriptions was unable to convince a Delaware court to restore her nursing license despite a pardon from the state’s governor, with the court ruling Friday that her license was revoked for misconduct separate from her crime.
A California federal judge on Monday dismissed a fraud claim in a medical malpractice suit accusing a doctor of botching a man’s knee replacement surgery and fraudulently concealing an infection, saying there is no evidence that the doctor knew about the infection.
A former orthopedic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital has accused the hospital of firing him for raising concerns about “double booked surgeries,” saying that his termination was retaliation for raising the alarm with government agencies and the media.
As more and more international legal giants opt to renounce their headquarters — a move that can woo clients and merger partners alike — experts say it’s a step that also brings its own set of management challenges.
A year after the U.K.’s vote to end its membership in the European Union, most firms are either hewing to existing expansion plans or making tweaks around the edges, with even the most avid crystal ball-gazers at a loss for what Brexit will mean in the long term.
When it comes to having the global expertise to handle complex cross-border matters spanning multiple time zones, some firms stand out from the rest. Here, Law360 reveals its seventh annual ranking of the firms with the biggest international presence.
Australia, Brazil and Germany have emerged as premier hubs for global law firm expansion in 2017, fueled in part by increased anti-corruption enforcement in Brazil, infrastructure investment in Sydney and the U.K.’s vote to leave the European Union.
International law firms play a crucial role in India despite being barred from practicing there, and some say opening up the country’s legal industry wouldn’t drastically change how they do business.
In a recent Law360 guest article, Christopher Bogart of Burford Capital LLC claimed that "while theoretically well designed to find the proverbial needle in a haystack, big data and AI currently lack the ability to do so usefully in a commercial litigation financing context." But AI can manage many of the tasks that litigation financiers would otherwise perform, says Eva Shang, co-founder of Legalist Inc.
Artificial intelligence and machine learning will continue to be a major focus for the legal community, whether as an isolated topic, as it intersects with cybersecurity, or within the legal profession itself. Each of these raises unique concerns for attorneys, says Randy Sabett, vice chair of Cooley LLP's privacy and data protection practice group.
By allowing attorneys to summarize what has just occurred in testimony and how it fits into the wider case narrative, courts can substantially improve juror comprehension through every step of a trial. Yet interim arguments are not practiced regularly, say Stephen Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and Dr. Roy Futterman of the NYU School of Law Civil Jury Project.
Recent amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure mean issues like spoliation, sanctions and adverse impacts are focus areas for many attorneys, providers and clients. David Turner of FTI Consulting Inc. discusses the technological best practices regarding preservation and proportionality, as well as the challenges associated with clients' structured data.
Outside counsel experienced with alternative fee arrangements will have many war stories regarding successful — and less successful — fee arrangements. Asking outside counsel to share these experiences can provide useful insight into the strength of a proposed AFA, say attorneys with WilmerHale.
Conventional wisdom says that oral argument is a mere formality; that in courts where judges read briefs in advance, their minds are made up and will rarely — if ever — change. But conventional wisdom notwithstanding, oral argument can be critical, says Stewart Milch of Goldberg Segalla LLP.
Though teaching a law school class may be one of the last things on a busy practitioner's to-do list, it's a misconception that teaching will benefit only those who are looking to leave the practice of law and enter academia. It also offers several practical benefits, especially for more junior lawyers looking for stand-up experience, say Steven Allison and Samrah Mahmoud of Crowell & Moring LLP.
Over the past 20 years, the number of jury trials has been on a dramatic decline. What if the vanishing jury trial is evidence of an expected development of human consciousness — explained by a theory known as spiral dynamics? asks Jennifer Gibbs, a partner with Zelle LLP.
Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, recently wrote a piece in Law360 praising the U.S. Supreme Court's Whole Woman’s Health decision, and condemning “sham” legislation targeting abortion clinics. But much of that legislation seeks to promote women’s health and safety and to demonstrate the state’s interest in protecting life in the womb, says Elissa Graves, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom.
This week’s idea for improving civil jury trials is remarkably simple: Allow counsel to provide complete opening statements to the entire venire before voir dire begins instead of after the jury is impaneled, say Stephen Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and Dr. Roy Futterman of the NYU School of Law Civil Jury Project.