Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

Liraglutide, a proposed diabetes drug, could increase the risk for heart problems and thyroid tumors, according to some studies conducted by drug maker Novo Nordisk. The FDA will determine exactly risks associated with liraglutide. Current data were insufficient to determine whether potential heart or thyroid risks exist.

Hopefully, this issue with liraglutide gets sorted out before liraglutide goes on to the market. I'm not prejudging the results. It would seem the process is working as it should: Novo Nordisk tells the FDA there is a concern and the FDA and the drug company work to sort of the concern.

Florida legislators have the nerve to consider adding common sense to Florida's wrongful death act. Really, the nerve. The inertia to change the law began with the family of a Florida teenager who disappeared more than 30 years ago whose wrongful death lawsuit against the killer is barred by Florida's wrongful death statute of limitations of two years even though the body was found just last year. Florida Senator Jeremy Ring has called Florida's wrongful death law "antiquated and ineffective."

It is awful injustices like these that make legislatures look at the bigger picture.

New York has an awful law that limits the recovery of New York medical malpractice lawyers. As I have written before it is the kind of law I hate the most. No, not because it cuts into malpractice lawyers' pocketbooks. I hate this cap rule because it is the worst kind of consumer protection: it looks like it helps consumers but actually hurts their ability to retain a lawyer. (While this is not a popular view in 2009, the same is true I believe with CEO salaries.) So while it looks like it helps victims - and it may help some individual victims who might have paid more who have great malpractice claims - the practical impact is that less medical malpractice victims who have claims are able to get New York malpractice lawyers. The related problem that comes from this is that many malpractice lawyers will, as a result, refuse to front the expense of a case, which also transfers the risk and the cost of the case from the malpractice lawyer - where it should be - to the client.

The New York Post has an article critical of efforts in the New York legislature of efforts to finally fix this awful malpractice law.

Related Posts

New York Malpractice Lawyer Fees

Phillip Peters on Doctors and Juries

Average Jury Verdicts in New York

Free Malpractice Consultation (or call 800-553-8082)

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Medical Malpractice , New York

| Share

Jury Verdict Research recent look a verdicts in personal injury cases in California shows the compensatory median award for personal injury trials in California is $150,000. This is a lot higher than the national average of less than $40,000. But plaintiffs receive money damages in only 45 percent of cases that go to trial, which is 5% less than the national average.

What does this data mean for personal injury plaintiffs in California? Not much but it is interesting data.

If you need a personal injury lawyer in California, call 800-553-8082 or click here for a free initial consultation.

A nursing home lawsuit in Phoenix on behalf of a the family of a man who died in a Phoenix assisted living facility was awareded $11 million in damages. According to the nursing home lawsuit, Liberty Manor Residency failed to properly monitor the man and falsified medical records which, not surprisingly, inflamed the jury.

You can find a story on the case here.

A doctor won a defense verdict in a failure to diagnose prostate cancer case in Delaware, according to Personal Injury Verdict Reviews. Plaintiff's malpractice case was essentially that he developed prostate cancer and his doctor failed to properly and timely diagnose and treat the Plaintiff's condition.

As is often the case, the defendant doctor fought the malpractice claim arguing that the real problem was that plaintiff did not follow-up as instructed. Not most but some juries in medical malpractice case look - consciously on subconsciously - for ways to blame splaintiffs for their own injuries. Patients who file medical malpractice claims leave themselves exposed if they do not follow their doctor's instructions to the letter.

The Maryland Auto Accident Lawyer Blog reports that the recent $45 million verdict reported in San Mateo, California is misleading because of the coverage issues that remain in the case.

Medical personnel responding to a 8 year-old's injuries by an exploding cannon at a Fourth of July celebration in Washington were negligent in his death, according to a Complaint filed by his family's malpractice lawyers. The lawsuit alleges that the responders were improperly trained and should not have canceled a previously requested medical airlift. The boy died after being struck by shrapnel from an 18-inch cannon fired by his grandfather.

These are tough cases because the laws in most jurisdictions are set up to give medical personnel responding to an emergency more discretion. I don't agree with this - like emergency room doctors, the law takes into account the exigency of the moment. In Washington, gross negligence is required to bring a claim against emergency personnel.

Related Posts:

Article on Case From Seattle Times (story on lawsuit)

Maryland Lawsuits Regarding Emergency Vehicles (immunity from liability provided in Maryland accident and medical malpractice cases)

The Hawaii House of Represenatives approved a bill to put one of the most restrictive medical malpractice cap on noneconomic awards in medical malpractice lawsuits against some types of doctors.

Hawaii House Bill limits non-economic damages to $250,000 in malpractice lawsuits against doctors who practice in areas such as emergency medicine, neurological surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedic surgery and general surgery. Adding insult it injury, the bill also caps at $3 million the award for gross negligence.

Incredibly, all of this is necessary even with Hawaii's cap on of $375,000 the award for pain and suffering. One goal of all of is this is dissuade Hawaii medical malpractice lawyers from taking on malpractice cases because the economics do not support bring a claim even with merit.

If you need a medical malpractice lawyer in Hawaii, call 800-553-8082 or click here for a free Hawaii malpractice claim review.

Some in the Oklahoma Legislature want to leap into the abyss of unreasonable caps on non-economic damages in Oklahoma medical malpractice case. Oklahoma House Bill 1603 would provide a maximum of $300,000 for pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases in Oklahoma.

You can find the story here.

I just wrote a blog post for the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog about the Plaintiff's victory in Wyeth v. Levine.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito writes:

This case illustrates that tragic facts make bad law. The court holds that a state tort jury, rather than the Food and Drug Administration, is ultimately responsible for regulating warning labels for prescription drugs.

In other words, six of his fellow justices, all of whom have spend more time on the Supreme Court than Justice Alito, are so blinded by Ms. Levine's injuries that they are no longer capable of making a rational decision. Does Justice Alito really think this the reason why six Supreme Court Justice ruled as they did in Wyeth v. Levine?