- Community college restructures staff to avoid ObamaCare employee mandate [Daniel Luzer, Washington Monthly] New pressure toward part-time employment is a big story [Coyote] But do regulations allow shift to part-time workers as a way of evading 50-employee rule, as seemingly contemplated in above post? [Gunn Chamberlain, P.A.] Why some workers might prefer being dropped from their employer’s health plan if higher pay results [Thom Lambert]
- Eleventh Circuit: hospital can be sued for not providing sign-language interpreter for emergency department visitors [Disabilities Law/Bagenstos]
- Proposition: “Off-label use can be, in many circumstances, the standard of care.” [Drug and Device Law] On Ben Goldacre’s new book “Bad Pharma” [Tyler Cowen]
- Overnight solution to med-mal crisis? Perhaps standard for lawyers’ malpractice should automatically fluctuate to reflect that for doctors [Ted Frank, Point of Law]
- Criminalizing the professions [White Coat]
- Drug shortages persist [ACSH, earlier here, here, etc.] What the FDA could do to speed antibiotic approval [Yevgeniy Feyman, Medical Progress Today, earlier]
- Clearer line-drawing between pharmacy and mass drug-compounding needed after tainted-steroid debacle [Scott Gottlieb/Sheldon Bradshaw, WSJ, earlier] With compounding pharmacy doubtfully able to pay claims, “You’re going to get people suing everyone.” [Boston Globe, David Oliver]
Posts tagged as:
legal malpractice
Imagine how it would change the practice of litigation if lawyers could be held answerable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on opponents, witnesses or third parties. Of course that’s not going to happen, since our legal profession is quite good at immunizing itself from exposure to liability for the same sorts of injuries that it sues over when inflicted by others. In this SSRN paper (via Robinette, TortsProf), Alex Long of the University of Tennessee proposes a presumption that lawyers’ behavior is “extreme and outrageous,” a precondition of IIED liability, if they could get disbarred for it.
{ 2 comments }
The Connecticut Supreme Court is being asked to rule that lawyers and conservators appointed by probate judges are immune from being sued by those they represent. The case arose “because of the abuse that Daniel Gross, an elderly New York man, suffered during 2005 and 2006 at the hands of a Waterbury probate court after he became sick while visiting his daughter.” Gross was placed in a nursing home on conservator’s orders, a decision eventually reversed by a court. [Rick Green, Hartford Courant]
{ 1 comment }
Lawyers who practice stress reduction techniques want discounts from their malpractice insurers [ABA Journal]
{ 4 comments }
In case you didn’t know that. [Zach Lowe, AmLaw Daily]
Will it cost its real estate client tens of millions? [NY Times via Above the Law] More: NY Post and Above the Law again.
{ 2 comments }
We covered this legal malpractice claim last year, with particular attention to the defendant law firm’s argument that it didn’t matter whether the case was handled flawlessly since it was obviously low on merit in the first place. Now a New York appellate court has reversed the trial court and dismissed the action on other grounds. (Scott Kreppein, Sept. 17).
In a key victory for plaintiffs and their lawyers, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has for the first time adopted the “loss of a chance” doctrine, which allows plaintiffs to recover money without having to show that it was more likely than not that the charged medical negligence made the difference in their recovery or survival. (Denise Lavoie, “Doctor held liable for a ‘loss of chance’”, AP/Boston Globe, Jul. 24). When Medical Economics surveyed the field two years ago, they found that about half the states had accepted the more liberal doctrine, which runs counter to the Anglo-American “more likely than not” prerequisite for establishing causation. More on the inexact and contradictory standards used in such cases here.
Readers of this site will not be the least surprised to learn that American courts have shown little or no interest in extending the “loss of a chance” doctrine for the benefit of plaintiffs in legal malpractice cases filed against attorneys whose inattention might have (but probably didn’t) deprive their clients of a favorable outcome in court proceedings.
{ 1 comment }
- Judge Henry Lackey, who went to feds to report bribe attempt by Dickie Scruggs associate, gets award and standing ovations at Mississippi bar convention, says he was just doing a judge’s job [NMC/Folo]
- Related: should Ole Miss Chancellor Robert Khayat have used official university stationery for his letter pleading leniency for chum/ benefactor Scruggs? [Daily Mississippian and editorial via YallPolitics, continuing coverage at Folo; earlier]
- Stephen Dubner: if lawyer/subscriber can sue Raleigh News & Observer over perceived decline in its quality, who’s next? [NYT/Freakonomics blog, earlier]
- Maneuvering over retrial of Kentucky fen-phen defendants Gallion and Cunningham [Lexington Herald-Leader]
- A Fieger sideshow: though acquitted in recent campaign laundering prosecution, controversial lawyer fared less well in lawsuit against Michigan AG Michael Cox; Sixth Circuit tossed that suit and upheld order that Fieger fork over attorney fees to Michigan Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman over subjecting the justice to unfounded vilification [ABA Journal; fixed typo on Circuit]
- Citing long history of frivolous litigation, federal judge in central Texas fines disbarred lawyer Charles Edward Lincoln and his client and bans Lincoln from bringing any more federal suits [SE Texas Record]
- Faced with $18 million legal-malpractice jury verdict, Indiana labor law firm stays in business by agreeing to make token payment, then gang up on its liability insurer for the rest [Indianapolis Business Journal, Ketzenberger/Indy Star via ABA Journal]
{ 6 comments }
