Blog - Personal Injury

Posted on March 23, 2021 by Marty Aisenberg

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.

Posted on October 27, 2020 by Peter George

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.

Posted on February 18, 2020 by Arie George

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.

Posted on August 27, 2019 by Peter George

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.

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 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:

Posted on April 30, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

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. 

Posted on April 9, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

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. 

Posted on March 19, 2019 by Arie George

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

Categories

FDA
Vident
2021 © Vident Partners.