Sentences with phrase «of the defendant doctors»

Asked what his first trial was like as a practicing attorney at Lubin & Meyer, Satin says it's the first deposition of a defendant doctor that sticks in his mind more than a courtroom experience.

The plaintiff was a patient of the defendant doctor.

When applied by a court, the doctrine delays the triggering of the statute of limitations when the plaintiff is under the continued care of the defendant doctor.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, reversing a lower court that had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant doctor.

Not exact matches

The plaintiffs lawyers opposed the motion, but also complained that if the defendants had shown the video earlier, they wouldn't have invested 21 months worth of litigation time, cost, doctors fees and judicial resources.

[16] Thus, the issue is framed — can a defendant or third party who has not obtained a doctor's report by compulsion of a court order, and prior to disclosure of any medical - legal reports by the plaintiff or in the absence of any reports, obtain access to the non-treating doctor's notes and clinical findings, or are said notes and clinical records privileged as forming part of the brief of the plaintiff's solicitor until the time when the plaintiff chooses to rely on the non-treating doctor as a witness at trial and the doctor's notes must be disclosed...

Typically, the parties that will be engaged in a Work Injury Case would be: Employer and their Defense Lawyer, Insurance Company / ies, Workers Compensation, Doctor / s, Therapist / s and of course the Personal Injury Attorney hired by the defendant.

It is not for the plaintiff to decide which doctor can examine him or her on behalf of the defendant...

However, the defendant's lawyers argued that state lawmakers included the possibility of retroactivity in the 2003 law because it was dealing with a medical malpractice «crisis» that was driving up insurance premiums for Florida doctors.

Key to that claim was the determination of whether the defendant doctors had a duty, owed to the plaintiff as a third party, to warn the Patient of the effects of the medication.

[33] Mr. Justice Henderson found that the defendant would not be prejudiced in any way by the admission of the videotape, because the alleged discrepancies between the tape and the report were minor and would not have affected his assessment of the doctor's credibility.

In 2013, there were 20 medical malpractice cases that went to trial, with 11 of those cases being decided in the favor of the defendant (meaning the doctor won at the trial level).

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that any non-consensual touching which is harmful or offensive to a person's reasonable sense of dignity was actionable and found the defendant doctor who gave the unauthorized blood transfusion liable for the tort of battery despite this case being an emergency situation.

While the number of depositions will vary from case to case, depositions are often taken from the defendant, any witnesses to the accident, friends and family members who are familiar with your injuries, representatives from the defendant's insurance company and your own doctors and health care providers.

Since the standard of medical care is not written in some book, it is important to use physicians who practice in the same specialty as the defendant doctor to analyze the medical / legal issues in the case.

Unsatisfied with the results, she asked the defendant, Dr. Jennifer Everson, vice president medical and chairwoman of the medical advisory committee, for a referral to a pediatric gastroenterologist in private practice because she believed the doctors within HHSC had labelled her as an anxious mother.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the alleged negligence of the non-parties was properly admitted because it was required to give the defendant doctor a fair trial.

If a jury finds that a defendant was negligent, it may award past and future medical expenses, lost wages including for time spent going to doctor's appointments, property damage, the cost of hiring someone to do household tasks you aren't able to do because of the accident, emotional distress, permanent disfigurement or disability damages, and any reduction in your future earning ability because of the injury.

Other defendants in the California lawsuit are a fertility center and one of its doctors.

Given that the plaintiff called evidence from 4 doctors who, at least according to the trial judge said the negligence was the probable cause, and the defendant called 2 who said it was not, the facts of Fisherseem to not invoke the impossibility condition (at least to me).

Experts can also offer their opinions about whether the care provided by a defendant doctor fell below the generally accepted standard of care.

The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant doctor, and in response, the doctor requested certain medical records pursuant to the rules of discovery.

The waiver stated that the doctor does not carry malpractice insurance and that by signing the waiver, the plaintiff agreed not to file a lawsuit against the doctor because the plaintiff understands that the defendant «will do the very best to take care of me according to community medical standards.»

After a jury returned a verdict in favor of the doctor in a medical malpractice case, an estate executor appealed on two questions of abuse of discretion: limitations on the scope of questions during the defendant's deposition, and refusal of jury instructions tendered by the plaintiff.

Instead, to show that the defendant breached the standard of care, the plaintiff must prove that a reasonable and competent doctor would have reached an alternative diagnosis or reached the correct diagnosis in a more timely fashion.

The defendant's evidence consisted of the same opinion, as well as a separate opinion by one of the doctors who was on the panel.

Your ICBC injury lawyer will also explain to you that if you do not follow a course of medical treatment recommended to you by your doctors, the Defendant must prove two things: (1) that you acted unreasonably in foregoing the recommended treatment, and (2) the extent, if any, that your damages would have been reduced had you acted reasonably.

Meagher JA also dismissed the appeal on the basis that a doctor will not be liable if a defendant can prove that, having taken a course of action that was consistent with reasonable care, the harm suffered would not have been avoided on the balance of probabilities.

Plaintiff Patient is suing Defendant Doctor for unlawful disclosure of H.I.V. status and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

A very large percentage of the examiners on the CME roster are also the same doctors conducting medical examinations for insurers in accident benefits cases and appearing at trial for defendants

Because the UW doctors are state employees — all state employees are covered by the cap — the ceiling on damage awards of any type is $ 250,000 per defendant, a cap that applies even if a doctor's negligence results in a lifetime injury that will require millions of dollars of future treatment.

The defendant was among the practice group of doctors treating the boy, but he was not initially involved.

After diagnosing the boy, the treating doctors referred the parents to the defendant, who was a pioneer in the use of radio frequency ablation to treat tumors.

The court reasoned that the «continuing course of treatment» doctrine applies only to the individual doctor who is named as a defendant, rather than the entire team of doctors working with the defendant.

This is a medical evaluation by the defendant's hired doctor, and it is a normal part of any personal injury claim.

What you do not know is was there prior injury, was there gaps in treatment, was the car damage significant, were the symptoms consistent and immediate, was there significant pain, was there limitation of activity, did the defennse doctor agree or disagree, was the person injured someone that worked hurt or was a constant complainer that would put off the jury, was the defendant a big company.

If there is one defendant, two of the three doctors must be from the defendant's specialty.

I suppose there could be valid reasons why 4 out of every 5 jury verdicts go in favor of the doctor or hospital — maybe the strongest cases are all being settled before trial, leaving only the weakest cases behind — but it's hard to say that with a straight face when those figures mean that malpractice defendants have better odds winning in a courtroom than the odds a casino has winning its own games.

[H] ow could an unrepresented prisoner be expected to challenge the affidavit of a hostile medical doctor (in this case really hostile since he's a defendant in the plaintiff's suit) effectively?

An important tool in winning these cases is the ability of a trial judge and jury to draw an adverse inference against the defendant doctors, nurses and hospitals.

Now he is a leading attorney working on behalf of seriously injured people in lawsuits against hospitals, doctors, drug companies, government agencies, and other defendants.

Likewise, the FDA's control of «labeling» extended to the other means (such as «Dear Doctor» letters) that plaintiffs claimed the defendant should have employed.

A large part of the defendant's case at trial involved putting to each of the claimants the discrepancies between what they had said to doctors who had treated them or examined them for forensic purposes and what they were saying at trial.

Thus for example the position of a doctor who routinely performed abortions who received photographs similar to those that were sent by the defendant might be materially different from that of employees in a pharmacy which happened to sell the morning after pill.

In the course of the trial the Defendant tried to introduced a report from a doctor of internal medicine to «provide an opinion as to whether (the Plaintiff's) medical treatment between October 5, 2007 and October 9, 2007 was the result of a pre-existing condition as defined in the Travel Insurance Policy ``.

(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.

Defendant agrees that, in any instance in which an insured or applicant for insurance provides Defendant with a report from a doctor (whose background and experience qualifies him / her, within the meaning of applicable law, to render such an opinion) indicating that the insured or applicant is able (either without qualification or limitation, or with qualifications or limitations consistent with restrictions on the individual's driver's license) to operate a motor vehicle safely, the fact that the insured or applicant for insurance has a mental or physical condition shall not, in any way, affect Defendant's decision to issue an insurance policy or the premium charged.

«Having found that [defendant] father and son relationship has been damaged by the alienation of the child toward the defendant, the next logical step is to determine what the court must do to correct the situation... «[Father's motion to modify from joint custody to sole legal custody in his favor, granted; prohibitions of various alienating behaviors on the part of mother and her family; restrictions on mother's attendance at doctor visits and parent - teacher conferences.