Blog

Posted on July 7, 2020 by Jeffrey N. Catalano

Jeff Catalano, a longtime client of ours, is one of Massachusetts’s leading medical malpractice / products liability / personal injury attorneys.  He recently wrote this article for his firm’s occasional email newsletter, and he has graciously consented to our request to reprint it here. 

One Important Immunity Achieved: Healthcare Providers from Lawsuits

By Jeffrey N. Catalano

Posted on June 30, 2020 by Dr. Steven Thornton

“What exactly is a medical toxicologist?”  I have been asked this question by physicians and attorneys alike.  The technical answer is that medical toxicology is a subspecialty officially recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.  The American College of Medical Toxicology defines it as the field of medicine dedicated to the evaluation and treatment of poisoned and envenomated patients.  This includes the adverse health effects of medications, occupational and environmental toxins, and biological agents. 

Posted on June 16, 2020 by Dr. Stephen Thornton

(Dr. Stephen Thornton is board certified in emergency medicine and medical toxicology and is one of Vident Partners’ leading experts in those fields.  For more information about him, see https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2020/emergency-medicine-medical-toxicology-expert-witness.) 

Posted on June 9, 2020 by Peter George

In this installment of my ongoing chronicle of sports-related litigation, https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/sports-law, I’m pleased to report on a recent decision that will be of particular interest to the baseball fans among our readers.

Posted on June 2, 2020 by Marty Aisenberg

In evaluating a complex medical malpractice case, where review by one or more specialists could be costly, the plaintiff’s attorney may want a preliminary flat-fee merit review (sometimes called a screening review) to help determine whether the case is worth pursuing.  We are pleased to announce that Vident Partners now provides this service.  Our reviewer is board certified in internal medicine and has 38 years of experience in primary care, hospital medicine, quality control, utilization review and legal consulting.  The fee is $850 for up to 4 hours of work, $350/hr thereafter.  If you’v

Posted on May 26, 2020 by Peter George

This recently-filed sexual assault case resonates, for three reasons: the event occurred on an airplane, which, while not unheard-of and certainly underreported, is relatively rare (see https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article238558198.html); it involves a reversal of the usual gender roles; and it’s an early glimpse of the approaching wave of coronavirus-related litigation:

Posted on May 19, 2020 by Marty Aisenberg

As every trial lawyer knows, the admissibility of a vast array of evidence is committed to the trial court’s discretion.  (Or “sound discretion,” as some appellate courts put it, though as far as I can tell it means the same thing.)  Consequently, one of the unavoidably nerve-wracking aspects of litigation is that Judge A and Judge B might reach opposite conclusions on the admissibility of the same evidence, yet both rulings could be upheld on appeal because neither ruling was an abuse of discretion.  So, without in any way denigrating the importance of our skill and experience in trial adv

Posted on May 12, 2020 by Peter George

One of our clients has a term for unusual or hard-to-find experts – he calls them “pink unicorns.”  We became aware of this phenomenon some years ago, even before we learned that felicitous phrase, when a  plaintiff’s attorney needed a dermatology expert for a complex case adverse to one of the most prominent and highly-regarded dermatologists in the United States.  Dozens of experts refused the case before we found a well-qualified dermatologist (not a “professional expert”) who was willing to review it.  The client was ecstatic, and obviously we were gratified to accomplish what he had be

Posted on May 5, 2020 by Marty Aisenberg

Rule 702 of the Minnesota Rules Evidence provides that “[an expert’s] opinion must have foundational reliability.”  This is the functional equivalent of Fed. R. Evid.

Posted on April 28, 2020 by Peter George

We’ve never blogged about a U.S. Supreme Court decision, though I did mention Feres v. United States in a post about recent legislation that created a long-overdue exception to the Feres doctrine – namely, allowing members of the armed forces to seek redress under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for negligent medical treatment at a military facility.

Categories

FDA
Vident
2020 © Vident Partners.