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.
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.
Fear of the unknown. Over a combined six decades of Cybersecurity work, our team has encountered one troubling constant: business and law firm leaders fear Cybersecurity risks and often exhibit extreme avoidance behaviors. But today, burying your head in the sand may be a “bet-the-company” mistake. While this nearly instinctual reaction to the unknown is understandable, it is unnecessarily reckless. With the right team supporting you, businesses and law firms can quickly, practically and affordably identify and remediate Cybersecurity risk.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently resolved a split among its district courts on an issue relating to removal from state to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Gibbons v.