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.
On December 5, 2018 a class action lawsuit was filed against Pacific Gas & Electric – Burnett v. PG&E Corporation, https://www.classaction.org/media/burnett-et-al-v-pg-and-e-corporation-et-al.pdf. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint summarize the plaintiffs’ allegations as follows:
This case points up the extreme care and attention to detail that a plaintiff’s attorney must exercise in reviewing an expert’s affidavit in opposition to summary judgment. The case is Fernandez v. Alexander (Calif. Ct.
Under the ancient common law doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital is liable for the negligence of a physician who is an employee of the hospital, but is not liable for the negligence of an independent physician who has staff privileges to practice at the hospital, i.e., an independent contractor. However, a hospital can be liable if it should not have granted staff privileges to the independent physician in the first place. This theory of direct hospital liability, called negligent credentialing, is recognized in more than 30 states. The Missouri Supreme Court ha
Material for a law-related blog sometimes comes from an unexpected source.
The South Dakota Supreme Court recently upheld summary judgment against the plaintiff in an auto accident case who failed to submit an affidavit from a medical expert on the issue of causation. Cooper v.