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.
The Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday tossed a suit accusing a hospital of medical malpractice, saying the patient failed to diligently pursue her case since the first claim was filed more than a decade ago.
A split Texas appellate panel on Thursday allowed a suit accusing two doctors of negligently treating a teen patient’s injured testicle, which later required amputation, to move forward, saying the patient’s two expert medical witnesses are qualified to testify under state law.
An Indiana appeals court has affirmed a doctor’s victory at trial over claims that his negligence caused a man's death from a heart condition and internal bleeding, ruling Friday that the exclusion of evidence about the patient's prior treatment was harmless error.
A Houston doctor and the Houston Ear Nose & Throat Clinic LLP that employs him were hit with a lawsuit Thursday by a mother on behalf of her now-deaf son, who alleges the doctor performed a cochlear implant surgery on the wrong ear and rendered the boy completely deaf in both ears.
A California appellate court ruled Thursday that a lower court was right to cut a doctor loose from a suit accusing several parties of bungling a patient’s treatment for an antibiotic-resistant infection, ruling that the doctor was a county employee and that the patient had not filed a timely administrative claim.
Most doctors believe that subjecting patients to unnecessary medical treatment is a common practice that is mostly prompted by a fear of medical malpractice claims, according to a survey published Wednesday by Johns Hopkins University researchers.
A Georgia appellate panel tossed a suit accusing a nurse midwife of being responsible for a baby's permanent brain injuries by negligently managing the mother's labor and delivery, saying Thursday that a theory submitted by the woman’s expert medical witness is not generally accepted in the scientific community and is therefore inadmissible.
An Illinois federal judge ruled Wednesday that Homeland Insurance Co. of New York need not cover A-Tec Ambulance Inc. in an underlying suit alleging that the ambulance company is responsible for a patient’s death after he fell while being loaded into an ambulance, an activity not covered by the policy, the judge said.
Two notable Dallas attorneys announced Wednesday that they have launched a new boutique, Hamilton Wingo LLP, that one of its name partners said he intends to build into “the best trial firm in the United States.”
A Tennessee appeals court on Wednesday declined to revive a suit accusing a Memphis doctor of causing the death of a patient by not ensuring she was transferred to intensive care after an inflammation that blocked her windpipe, ruling the expert witness testimony was too thin and speculative for the suit to continue.
A Massachusetts federal judge on Wednesday changed course and ruled an insurance claims administrator is protected by a state “safe harbor” law in a suit arising from a $16 million verdict stemming from a woman’s death at a nursing home, but said a trial is still needed to resolve the case.
A University of Maryland-affiliated hospital is accused of failing to respond to signs of fetal distress and failing to perform a timely Cesarean section on a woman, which purportedly caused her baby to suffer permanent brain damage, according to a suit filed Tuesday in Maryland federal court.
An Illinois appellate panel on Tuesday upheld a county court's order for a hospital to produce documents pertaining to the case of a premature infant who died three weeks after birth, despite the hospital's claims they were protected.
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.
The first step in assembling an intelligent response to a request for an alternative fee arrangement is for outside counsel to be certain they understand the primary reasons that the client is making the request, say attorneys with WilmerHale.
These days, legal operations directors can easily get stretched too thin between responsibilities like overseeing support staff and taking on office management responsibilities. Legal operations teams should focus their time and effort on outside counsel management, technology planning and analytics, says Jaime Woltjen of Stout Risius Ross LLC.
Despite the seemingly endless controversy surrounding discovery of certain records associated with peer review activities, health care providers in Florida must remain mindful that their obligation to perform good-faith peer review remains staunchly in place, says Dominic MacKenzie of Holland & Knight LLP.
With the U.S. Supreme Court term now concluded, we take a look back at some first impressions from the experts when the most impactful decisions for corporate law were handed down.
The law relating to the taking of discovery directly from U.S. law firms is evolving in favor of disclosure when documents have been provided to third parties. Law firms must be vigilant in handling their clients' documents or face being responsible for producing them to third parties, say Steven Kobre and John Han of Kobre & Kim LLP.
Since 1980, there has been a systemic supersizing of business enterprises, the growth of sovereign wealth, and the emergence of international businesses. The pressure this has put on national and regional law firms to go global or go home is enormous, says Fredric Newman, a founding partner of Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney LLP.
In December 2015, an amendment to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was implemented with the intent of putting reasonable limits on civil discovery. The many subsequent cases that have applied the amended rules provide guideposts for litigants and practitioners, say Brandee Kowalzyk and Christopher Polston of Nelson Mullins LLP.
The simple practice of asking jurors important and substantive questions early can help make trial by jury a more reliable form of dispute resolution, say Stephen Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and Dr. Roy Futterman of the NYU School of Law Civil Jury Project.
One year ago the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decisively rejected the widespread anti-choice tactic of restricting women’s reproductive rights with sham legislation. A new lawsuit recently filed in Louisiana reveals exactly why that ruling is the most important decision on abortion rights in a generation, says Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.