Blog - Medical Malpractice

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 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 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 December 17, 2019 by Peter George

As the managing partner of Healthcare Litigation Support and (after our name change) Vident Partners, I’ve had the opportunity to assist in hundreds of medical malpractice cases.  I’ve provided expert witnesses to attorneys from large and small firms, both plaintiff and defense, throughout the United States as well as Canada and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  I don’t claim to be an expert on medical malpractice law, but I’m experienced enough to understand why these litigations begin, how they proceed, and how they resolve.

Posted on November 12, 2019 by Peter George

Vident Partners was founded as Healthcare Litigation Support in 2005.  We originally focused on providing experts for medical malpractice and other personal injury litigation.  Our consulting experts and expert witnesses were specialists in medicine, pharmacology, biomedical engineering, health care administration and operations, and other healthcare-related fields.  Stewart v.

Posted on November 5, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

Article 1, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states:  “All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have a remedy by due course of law….”  In Yanakos v.

Posted on September 10, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

The case is Ashland Hospital Corp. v. Lewis, http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2018-SC-000276-DG.pdf (8/29/2019).  The defendant, an interventional radiologist, performed a cerebral angiogram to assist in diagnosing the cause of the plaintiff’s chronic headaches.  A recovery room nurse told the defendant that the plaintiff was complaining of headache and scotoma (spots in his field of vision).  These symptoms may indicate a stroke, but they also are not uncommon after a cerebral angiogram.

Posted on June 25, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

The Kansas Supreme Court recently struck down a $250,000 statutory cap on noneconomic damages in all personal injury cases, holding that the statute violated the right to a jury trial guaranteed by the Kansas Constitution.  Hilburn v. Enerpipe, http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2019/20190614/112765.pdf (6/14/2019).  In doing so, the court reversed a 7-year-old precedent, Miller v.

Posted on May 16, 2019 by Peter George

Vident Partners provides medical malpractice experts to both plaintiff and defense attorneys.  And over the 15 years that we’ve been in business we’ve seen a wide variety of issues, most of which we’ve been able to service with skilled, on-point experts.  But a recent article by Dr.

Posted on May 7, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

In Azmat v. Bauer, http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2016-SC-000560-DG.pdf, the Kentucky Supreme Court addressed an unusual but interesting issue concerning the unauthorized practice of law in the “next friend” context. 

The full caption of the case is Sameena Azmat, as Mother and Next Friend of Nausher Azmat v. George W. Bauer, MD et al.  The court explained this type of lawsuit as follows:

Categories

FDA
Vident
2020 © Vident Partners.