Blog

Posted on May 26, 2020 by Peter George

This recently-filed sexual assault case resonates, for three reasons: the event occurred on an airplane, which, while not unheard-of and certainly underreported, is relatively rare (see https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article238558198.html); it involves a reversal of the usual gender roles; and it’s an early glimpse of the approaching wave of coronavirus-related litigation:

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 May 12, 2020 by Peter George

One of our clients has a term for unusual or hard-to-find experts – he calls them “pink unicorns.”  We became aware of this phenomenon some years ago, even before we learned that felicitous phrase, when a  plaintiff’s attorney needed a dermatology expert for a complex case adverse to one of the most prominent and highly-regarded dermatologists in the United States.  Dozens of experts refused the case before we found a well-qualified dermatologist (not a “professional expert”) who was willing to review it.  The client was ecstatic, and obviously we were gratified to accomplish what he had be

Posted on May 5, 2020 by Marty Aisenberg

Rule 702 of the Minnesota Rules Evidence provides that “[an expert’s] opinion must have foundational reliability.”  This is the functional equivalent of Fed. R. Evid.

Posted on April 28, 2020 by Peter George

We’ve never blogged about a U.S. Supreme Court decision, though I did mention Feres v. United States in a post about recent legislation that created a long-overdue exception to the Feres doctrine – namely, allowing members of the armed forces to seek redress under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for negligent medical treatment at a military facility.

Posted on April 14, 2020 by Martin Aisenberg

There is a split in the circuits on the important question of whether a medical opinion can be false within the meaning of the False Claims Act (FCA).

Posted on April 1, 2020 by Peter George

Yes, Vident Partners is still open for business and actually functioning quite well.

Posted on March 24, 2020 by Marty Aisenberg

Two class actions have been brought against GOJO, the maker of Purell hand sanitizer, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Posted on March 18, 2020 by Peter George

In my ongoing chronicle of sports-related litigation, https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/sports-law, I have previously had occasion to cite the work of Michael McCann, Sports Illustrated’s legal analyst and the founding director of the University of New Hampshire Law School’s Sports and Entertainment Law Institute.  Professor McCann has outdone himself in a just-posted article, “U.S. Women’s National Team Challenges Use of U.S.

Posted on March 10, 2020 by Marty Aisenberg

The importance of expert opinion (offered either by affidavit or in deposition testimony) in summary judgment practice cannot be overstated.  We have previously written about this in a number of different contexts: medical malpractice (https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2019/medical-expert’s-affidavit-opposition-summary-judgment-fails-establish-triable-issue), health insurance coverage (

Categories

FDA
Vident
2021 © Vident Partners.