Charter Communications LLC will have to hand over $9.45 million after a Kentucky federal jury found Friday that it defamed seven former employees when it told other employees about the incident that led to their firing, involving company printers being taken home, and labeled it “Printer-gate.”
Holland & Knight LLP has hired a Dallas trial attorney with 18 years of experience from dissolving boutique firm Gruber Hail Johansen Shank LLP to continue expanding in Texas.
A federal jury in Springfield, Massachusetts, on Monday convicted a gynecologist of disclosing her patients’ private medical information to a sales representative at Warner Chilcott and then lying about it to federal agents during an investigation into a doctor-kickback scheme the company admitted in 2015.
The family of a man who died suddenly just days after going to a doctor for chest pains deserves a retrial, a New York appellate court has ruled in reversing a trial judge's directed verdict in favor of the doctor, saying there is enough evidence for a jury to consider.
The Sixth Circuit court of appeals took a skeptical stance towards the arguments of a Kentucky heart doctor attempting to preserve a federal judge's ruling overturning his conviction on health care fraud.
A Manhattan jury on Monday worked to sort out a complicated case against a federal worker, a consultant and two investment pros accused of forming a "corrupt tipping chain" that fed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services secrets to Wall Street traders, after a federal judge declined a defense request to give more legal instructions.
The Fifth Circuit’s recent decision to toss a $150 million award against Johnson & Johnson because of “unequivocally deceptive” statements to the jury by lead plaintiffs lawyer Mark Lanier about payments to expert witnesses isn’t a total victory for J&J, which still must face the bulk of claims against its allegedly defective hip implants at retrial.
Former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, for decades one of the most powerful politicians in the state, on Monday began a second trial over claims that he reaped millions of dollars in illicit referral fees in exchange for taking official action on behalf of developers and an asbestos disease doctor, which prosecutors told jurors was “quid pro quo, this for that.”
A California federal jury on Monday found Autonomy's ex-chief financial officer guilty of fraud and securities charges for lying about the British software company's financials before Hewlett-Packard Co.'s $11.7 billion acquisition in 2011.
New England Compounding Center pharmacists and other former employees facing mail fraud charges as a result of the infamous 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak told a Massachusetts federal judge Monday that the jury at their upcoming trial should not hear about the harm caused by the center's tainted drugs, arguing it would lead the panel to act on emotion.
Johnson & Johnson and its talc supplier have urged a New Jersey state court to toss verdicts totaling $117 million in damages against them over claims that the pharmaceutical giant sold asbestos-containing talcum powder that contributed to a man's mesothelioma, saying he failed to prove that such alleged contamination caused his deadly disease.
A former executive at a power plant development company who is accused of bribing Joseph Percoco, a former top aide to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, appears to have struck a plea deal with federal prosecutors, according to court papers filed Thursday.
The Mississippi Supreme Court has ordered a new trial in the medical malpractice case a woman filed against a doctor over a surgical sponge left in her abdomen, finding the trial court erred in not giving the jury an instruction as to what constitutes negligence in such cases under state law.
The loss that a New Haven federal jury handed to the government in its case against a former UBS trader accused of scheming to manipulate the precious metals futures market illustrates the risks in prosecuting criminal spoofing cases without more direct evidence of intent, legal experts say.
The Third Circuit has called on prosecutors to spell out the evidence presented to jurors showing that gridlock at the George Washington Bridge came at a cost above the threshold needed to sustain the criminal convictions of two former public officials in a political revenge scheme.
Damages experts in recent high-profile IP disputes say they are getting bumped by the Daubert standard while trying to find their way in a fog created by a lack of court guidance, but seasoned intellectual property attorneys instead see judges finally holding patent damages experts to the same rigorous standards as any other expert witness.
A Philadelphia jury on Friday cleared a pair of Bayer AG and Johnson & Johnson units of claims that the companies failed to properly warn a New Jersey man’s doctors about the risks of internal bleeding associated with the anticoagulant medication Xarelto.
A North Carolina federal jury on Thursday awarded more than $50 million to neighbors of a 15,000-head hog farm owned by the subsidiary of a Chinese corporation, siding with residents who sued the farm owner for spraying urine and feces into the air to deal with waste.
A Maryland appellate panel on Thursday reversed a jury verdict in favor of a doctor accused of botching a gallbladder removal surgery, saying the doctor’s dubious claim that the patient was partly to blame “infected the entire proceedings” and may have improperly swayed the jury.
A Brooklyn federal jury delivered a $5.1 million verdict Wednesday against a Long Island, New York, health plan provider for forcing "Onionhead" religious practices on 10 workers and firing one who pushed back, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Thursday.
Trial consultants Bliss Piverger and Christina Marinakis of Litigation Insights Inc. discuss how jurors’ feelings about safety in the wake of a mass shooting can influence their views on lawsuits against premises owners, security companies, event organizers, gun manufacturers and social media platforms.
Like medical professionals, lawyers often resist policies to reduce errors due to the culture of perfectionism that permeates the industry. Autonomy is key to the legal professional's prestige and the outward demonstration of competence is key to maintaining autonomy, says Peter Norman of Winnieware LLC.
Many bad drug and device law decisions lately have come from appellate courts, with the Eleventh Circuit in particular creating obstacle courses for both defense practitioners and judges. This month's Rowe v. Mentor Worldwide LLC ruling is an example. All the claims would have been dismissed if not for a pesky, unsound and inconsistent Eleventh Circuit case, says Stephen McConnell of Reed Smith LLP.
It is undisputed that in his first year in office President Trump was able to confirm a significant number of judges to the federal bench. How it happened — and whether it's a good thing — are debated here by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
The recent Third Circuit opinion in Shuker v. Smith & Nephew got the most important issue right — when you have a multicomponent medical device, premarket approval preemption is to be addressed on a component-by-component basis. This is an important question, because surgeons engaging in off-label use do mix and match parts with different regulatory backgrounds, says Michelle Yeary of Dechert LLP.
Not all demonstratives are created equal. While lawyers as a group have mastered the art of presenting arguments orally and in writing, there is much room for improvement in how we present arguments visually, says Jason Fowler of Covington & Burling LLP.
In the final article in this five-part series, longtime trial lawyer David Dolkas discusses Level One and Level Two investigative questioning.
The U.S. Supreme Court may soon revisit a seminal decision on products liability law for pharmaceutical manufacturers. If the court grants Merck & Co.'s request for certiorari in Fosamax, it could signal that lower courts, as well as branded manufacturers, will finally receive guidance on Levine’s "clear evidence" standard, say attorneys with Morrison & Foerster LLP.
As technology has evolved to make telecommuting possible in more types of jobs, so too has the answer to the question of whether it's a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, as demonstrated by two recent Sixth Circuit decisions, at least one pattern can be discerned in these types of cases, say Alexis Ronickher and Mehreen Rasheed of Katz Marshall & Banks LLP.
In the fourth article of this five-part series, longtime trial lawyer David Dolkas discusses the Sawatsky method and, specifically, the importance of asking who, what, when, where, why and how questions.