Last April I wrote about the FDA’s decision to ban the use of surgical mesh devices for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (“transvaginal mesh” or “pelvic mesh”). https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2019/fda-bans-surgical-mesh-transvaginal-repair-pelvic-organ-prolapse. Of course, because transvaginal mesh was used for that purpose for 14 years (2002-2016), the resulting litigation isn’t over yet. The most recent case to come to my attention is Kaiser v.
Dr. Stephen L. Thornton is one of our top experts specializing in emergency medicine and medical toxicology. He consistently receives the highest praise from both plaintiff and defense attorneys.
As a baseball fan I always pay attention to the various sports websites, and a couple of weeks ago I saw an article that I read with amazement and some concern.
There’s real consumer fraud, and there’s imaginary consumer fraud. Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/12/30/18-16721_.pdf (9th Cir. 12/30/19), is a striking example of the latter.
Attorneys who have never used an expert referral service may question the benefits of going that route, rather than continuing to find their own experts. Indeed, that very question has often been asked of us during our 14 years in the business. As a result (and without speaking for other referral services), we can comprehensively explain the benefits of working with our firm, Vident Partners.
As the managing partner of Healthcare Litigation Support and (after our name change) Vident Partners, I’ve had the opportunity to assist in hundreds of medical malpractice cases. I’ve provided expert witnesses to attorneys from large and small firms, both plaintiff and defense, throughout the United States as well as Canada and the U.S. Virgin Islands. I don’t claim to be an expert on medical malpractice law, but I’m experienced enough to understand why these litigations begin, how they proceed, and how they resolve.
Surprisingly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently split 5-4 on this seemingly noncontroversial question. The case is Strauss v.
As Peter explained in last week’s post, https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2019/blood-alcohol-hipaa-and-4th-amendment, in addition to our longtime (nearly 15-year) healthcare expert referral practice, we provide consulting and testifying experts in all fields of specialization for all types of litigation. I thought it might be useful to list some specific examples of our expanded service. In 2018/2019 we referred, and our clients engaged, experts in the following fields (in no particular order):
Vident Partners was founded as Healthcare Litigation Support in 2005. We originally focused on providing experts for medical malpractice and other personal injury litigation. Our consulting experts and expert witnesses were specialists in medicine, pharmacology, biomedical engineering, health care administration and operations, and other healthcare-related fields. Stewart v.
Article 1, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: “All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have a remedy by due course of law….” In Yanakos v.
