The title of this blog post is the holding of a recent Tenth Circuit case, Tanner v. McMurray, https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/19/19-2166.pdf (10th Cir. 3/2/2021). All quotations below (except the statute itself) are from Senior Circuit Judge Lucero’s outstanding opinion for a unanimous panel. Footnotes, citations and internal brackets are omitted (i.e., bracketed language is mine); most internal quotation marks are omitted.
Revisiting an old blog is often a useful exercise. For us at Vident, this particular post is always relevant, because our business is providing experts, and we’re always focused on the “why” as well as the “how” when we promote our services. So if you haven’t seen this one, or even if you have, it’s a useful reminder of why we do what we do and how completely you can rely on us to do it right.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently emphasized the requirement of expert opinion in an important class of premises liability cases – namely, those in which the plaintiff alleges that negligent design, construction, or maintenance created a dangerous condition. The case is Yanku v.
Historically, professional sports has not been viewed as a field rich in opportunities for litigation (Flood v. Kuhn notwithstanding). Over the past few decades, however, there has been a substantial increase sports-related litigation, which in turn has provided ample opportunities for experts to assist both plaintiffs and defendants.
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.
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:
Last week I wrote about the FDA’s decision to ban surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The FDA took this action only after tens of thousands of lawsuits were filed to recover for injuries caused by transvaginal mesh, 4 years of heightened FDA surveillance of transvaginal mesh complications, more than 2 years that the FDA gave the manufacturers to produce sufficient evidence that the benefits of transvaginal mesh repair of POP outweigh the risks, and an additional year for the FDA to determine that the manufacturers had not produced the required evidence.
Several thousand lawsuits are pending in state courts around the country in which the plaintiffs claim that the weed killer Roundup caused them to develop cancer – specifically, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. About 800 such cases brought in federal courts have been consolidated as multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under the management of Judge Vince Chhabria.
Many personal injury cases involve traumatic brain injury (TBI) cause by a closed head injury. The severity of TBI can vary quite widely, with a correspondingly wide range of damages. See generally https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/traumatic-brain-injury/symptoms-causes/syc-20378557.