Blog

Posted on March 5, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

Under the ancient common law doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital is liable for the negligence of a physician who is an employee of the hospital, but is not liable for the negligence of an independent physician who has staff privileges to practice at the hospital, i.e., an independent contractor.  However, a hospital can be liable if it should not have granted staff privileges to the independent physician in the first place.  This theory of direct hospital liability, called negligent credentialing, is recognized in more than 30 states.  The Missouri Supreme Court ha

Posted on February 21, 2019 by Peter George

Material for a law-related blog sometimes comes from an unexpected source.

Posted on February 19, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

The South Dakota Supreme Court recently upheld summary judgment against the plaintiff in an auto accident case who failed to submit an affidavit from a medical expert on the issue of causation.  Cooper v.

Posted on February 12, 2019 by Arie George

A recent opinion of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Kopplin v. Wisconsin Central Limited, http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D02-01/C:17-3602:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2286594:S:0, is an excellent reminder that a case can fail without a well-chosen and properly prepared expert witness. 

Posted on February 7, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

As I mentioned in a previous post, almost all of the states have enacted a variety of laws that treat medical malpractice cases differently from all other torts.  “Medical malpractice reform proponents argue that tort reforms – such as limiting malpractice awards, tightening statutes of limitations for filing claims and screening cases before they go to trial – not only reduce overall medical care spending, but also increase access to care.

Posted on January 29, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

In response to skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums in the 1970s and 80s, states began enacting a variety of “tort reform” laws that treat medical malpractice differently from all other torts.

Posted on January 17, 2019 by Arie George

In December 2018, two different courts issued opinions in favor of Apple in personal injury/wrongful death suits.  The first is Modisette v. Apple Inc. (https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Modisette.pdf), from the Court of Appeal of the State of California; the second is Meador v. Apple Inc. (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40968-CV0.pdf), from the U.S.

Posted on January 15, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

Here’s a timely reminder that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (the basis of the Supreme Court’s famous Daubert decision) imposes a four-part test.  For expert opinion testimony to be admissible, the fact that the expert has “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” [Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)] is necessary, but not sufficient.

Categories

FDA
Vident
2020 © Vident Partners.