This study by “Americans for Insurance Reform” says that the so-called crisis in the medical malpractice insurance market is over.
The introduction to the report:
“The most recent data from the Council of Independent Agents and Brokers now confirms that the large medical malpractice insurance rate increases that took hold around the nation in 2001 and 2002 have ended.
To what extent may a party discover communications between an oppsoing party and its expert witness? The Supreme Court of Rhode Island recently addressed this issue in Crowe Countryside Realty Associates Co., LLC v. Novare Engineering Co. (For some reason I cannot get a good link to the opinion so you will have to track it down on the Rhode Island Supreme Court website, Westlaw or Lexis.)
Here is a handy summary of the 19-page opinion: “Without the ability to protect their own conclusions and theories from discovery, attorneys may not be able to fully and confidently prepare expert witnesses for their clients’ trials. Permitting full disclosure
of everything revealed to expert witnesses might hamper the trial preparation process because attorneys would be reluctant to reveal their mental impressions, legal theories, trial tactics, and strategies to testifying experts. In our opinion, it is the disclosure of just such information that Rule 26(b)(3)’s dictation of the work-product privilege was intended to prevent. … We therefore hold that the clear language in the second sentence of subdivision (b)(3) requires that a court protect all core or opinion work product of an attorney, whether or not shared with an expert. We believe that this command to courts, that they “shall protect” opinion work product, was intended to apply to all discovery requests of materials prepared in anticipation of litigation because of the admonition’s location in the general portion of Rule 26 applying to all discovery. See Rule 26(b)(3).”
The opinion was released February 2, 2006.
I found this memo at an empty corner table in the bar in the basement of the Hermitage Hotel in downtown Nashville, sitting on table next to an empty bottle of Opus and two wine glasses.
To: TMA Director for Tort Reform
From: AMA Vice President for Tort Reform
The Indiana Supreme Court denied a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute of limitations for minors. The statute required that a suit be filed within two years of the date of injury or by the injured minor’s eighth birthday if injured in the first six years of life.
The statute was challenged under this provision of the Indiana Constitution: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
The case is Ledbetter v. Hunter. Westlaw subscribers can see it at 2006 WL 401204. The opinion was released on February 22nd.
The United States Supreme Court does not hear many tort cases. However, the Court released a tort opinion on Wednesday that held that the U.S. Postal Service is subject to personal injury lawsuits if they do not use due care when leaving mail at people’s homes.
The Pennsylvania plaintiff tripped and fell over mail left on her porch. She sued the Post Office, which claimed immunity. The Court reversed two lower court decisions dismissing the case, holding that that a federal law giving the post office immunity from certain claims was only intended to cut off lawsuits that arise from delivering the mail late or in a damaged condition.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Thomas was the sole dissenter. Justice Alito did not participate.
You may hate tobacco lawsuits and lawyers who bring them. But you cannot help but agree that the tobacco industry is absolutely despicable. How the executives of the industry who lied to the country and the government for years can sleep is beyond me.
There are lots of people who agree, one group of them being the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. This opinion affirms a significant punitive damage verdict against Phillip Morris.
Some excerpts:
Here is the latest on the Vioxx research controversy between certain certain scientists and the New England Journal of Medicine.
The Tennessean was kind enough to publish an op-ed piece I wrote. Here is the full article from today’s paper.
Health-care industry sells snake oil about malpractice
By JOHN A. DAY
A picture is worth a thousand words – or maybe more.
Click here to get access to a great list of websites that have videos and stills on a host of medical issues. Some of the sites are copyrighted, but at least you can look at the sites to educate yourself and, if you need to use the images for deposition, mediation or trial, know where you can purchase the images you need.
Thanks again to Robert for telling me about this site.
Here is the lead editorial in today’s Tennessean:
Beware of quick fix on malpractice reform
It’s a fact that Tennessee physicians, particularly those in some specialty groups, have to pay high rates for malpractice insurance. Those high premiums discourage young doctors from pursuing some specialties and drive practicing doctors out of some geographic areas.
