Blog

Posted on June 28, 2022 by Marty Aisenberg

When surgery leads to a bad result, the plaintiff almost always files suit for medical malpractice.  I say “almost always” because a recent Massachusetts case has reminded me that occasionally a plaintiff can sue a surgeon for breach of contract, and that in such a case expert testimony is not only not required, but if offered would not be admissible.  Based on the court’s opinion and the cases it cites, it appears to me that the occasion for a breach of contract action against a surgeon will arise almost exclusively in the context of elective cosmetic surgery.  

Posted on June 1, 2022 by Marty Aisenberg

Both before and during World War II, the Nazi government obtained vast quantities of Jewish-owned art and artifacts – mostly by outright expropriation, sometimes by coerced sale at a deep discount.  Today, 77 years after the end of the war, heirs of the original owners are still seeking to recover wrongfully acquired artworks, by informal negotiation if possible, otherwise by lawsuits.  Two such cases were decided by the U.S.

Posted on April 26, 2022 by Marty Aisenberg

The defendants had a 5-foot rubber raft in their swimming pool.  One of their guests at a holiday party dove off a diving board onto the raft, bounced off the raft and was propelled into the water, where he struck his head near the shallow end of the pool and broke his neck.  The plaintiff is confined to a wheelchair, has limited use of his arms, and is unable to perform most daily tasks without assistance.

The raft had several warnings clearly printed on it, including the following:

Posted on March 29, 2022 by Marty Aisenberg

This is an obstetrical malpractice case.  A caesarean section was delayed for several hours due to the negligence of both the treating physicians and the nurses, as result of which the baby sustained significant hypoxic brain damage during labor and was born with cerebral palsy.  The plaintiff mother, suing on behalf of her child, settled with the physicians and proceeded to trial against the hospital that employed the nurses.  Rodriguez-Valentin v. Doctors’ Center Hospital, No. 20-2093 (1st Cir.

Posted on February 22, 2022 by Marty Aisenberg
Posted on January 25, 2022 by Marty Aisenberg

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishes a cause of action for healthcare discrimination:  “[A]n individual shall not, on the ground prohibited under [four existing federal nondiscrimination statutes], be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any health program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal financial assistance….The enforcement mechanisms provided for and available under [29 U.S.C.

Posted on December 28, 2021 by Marty Aisenberg

The case is Clanton v. United States of America (No. 20-2059, 7th Cir., 12/17/2021) and once again, the opinion’s opening paragraph summarizes it better than any of my several attempts:

Posted on November 23, 2021 by Marty Aisenberg

Two recent federal appellate court opinions have brought my attention to an issue that is literally a matter of life and death – namely, a change in the policy for allocating donated organs among patients awaiting transplants.  The cases (filed barely over a week apart) are Adventist Health System/SunBelt v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (No. 21-1589, 8th Cir., 11/8/2021), https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/11/211589P.pdf, and Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing (No.

Posted on October 26, 2021 by Marty Aisenberg

Back in June, in a post about the first (as far as I know) case in which healthcare workers challenged a COVID-19 vaccination requirement, I wrote, “This could be the first of many cases in which employees object to their employer’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement – we’ll have to wait and see.” https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2021/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-houston-methodist-hospital-employees-who-refused-covid-19.  Well, it was indeed th

Posted on September 28, 2021 by Marty Aisenberg

This one could be headed to the Supreme Court.  In Hepp v. Facebook (Nos. 20-2725 & 2885, 3d Cir., 9/23/2021), https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/202725p.pdf, the Third Circuit  Court of Appeals created a split in the circuits on an important issue, the Ninth Circuit having ruled the other way in Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007).  Both cases were 2-1 decisions with vigorous dissenting opinions.

Categories

ACA
FDA
Vident
2024 © Vident Partners.