Material for a law-related blog sometimes comes from an unexpected source.
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.
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.
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.
I have been following this litigation for several months. (See my previous posts at https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6407989287274455040/, https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6410206962260144128/, and https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6435163112038629376/.) There are 10,600
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.
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.
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.
620 cases claiming that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer) causes cancer are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.