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.
As I pointed out less than a month ago (see my August 27th post), sports-related litigation is a growth business these days. The latest example is Antonio Brown’s anticipated grievance against the New England Patriots, seeking nearly $10 million in unpaid salary and guarantees. Sports Illustrated’s legal analyst, Michael McCann, has an excellent article about the case, including an in-depth discussion of the legal and factual issues, at
Today’s decision-makers require cogent translation from the emerging digital languages of Cybersecurity, privacy, computer forensics, and data analytics to the languages of business and law. Flatwater Forensics is a boutique consultancy built on this foundational principle. Our team employs a singular focus—helping you understand and successfully navigate the often perilous confluence of data and your business ventures.
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.
In internal investigations and across substantive areas of litigation, we have encountered a new and unmistakable reality—data is not a loose collection of independent things like documents, devices or accounts; Data is a System.
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.
Facebook, one of the three tech giants that have come to dominate both our business and personal worlds, is becoming increasingly controversial and faces significant challenges to its policies, and potentially to its very existence.
As in any professional malpractice litigation, the plaintiff in a legal malpractice case must present expert opinion testimony to establish that the defendant breached the standard of care. Unlike other professional malpractice cases, however, the causation issue in a legal malpractice case – namely, whether the client would have achieved a better result if the attorney had handled the matter properly – almost always presents a question of law, and such questions are not a proper subject for expert testimony. As a federal court of appeals tartly observed, “Each courtroom comes equipped wi
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.
