Day on Torts

Steven and I have been having a discussion – it started here. Here is his latest missive:

“My mistake, I did not mean to state that this particular lawyer(s) was sleazy, but that the trial bar in general is sleazy. I will admit that there must be some decent trial attorneys just as there are bad doctors, cops, judges, etc.

As for your comment about doctors and EtOH, drugs, etc., it is true that many docs have problems, but experts and studies have shown that the last thing in their life they let go is often their career. This is probably true for most professions as well. Plus, I would never call someone with a disease sleazy, that would be “shallow.”

The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that the amounts of settlements made by doctor in other cases are not discoverable in another medical malpractice action against him.

The case is Miller v. Kelly; it is reported at 130 P.3d 982 (Ariz. App. 2006).

The Court held that “the amount paid in settlement of a claim establishes neither negligence nor gross negligence” and that the information is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court noted that “[p]ermitting disclosure of amounts paid in settlement of a lawsuit contrary to an express provision ensuring the confidentiality of that information likely would discourage parties from settling. And disclosure of that information poses the risk that conclusions will be drawn about the paying party’s culpability and the degree of culpability based on the fact that payment was made and the amount.”

Go to the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Law Blog for a post on wrong site surgeries.

Teresa Sigmon, attorney for the defendant in a medical malpractice case, allegedly pressured one of the plaintiff’s consulting experts in the case into withdrawing from an agreement to testify for the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sued her, her law firm, and the the medical malpractice insurer for “abuse of process, intentional interference with a business relationship, inducement/procurement of a breach of contract, and coercion of a witness.” (The defendant doctor was also sued originally; that claim was dropped.)

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded all of the claims against the lawyer and her law firm for trial except the abuse of process claim.

The Court found the existence of a business relationship between the consultant and the plaintiff and found that a claim existed under both the interference and inducement theories.