A doctor treating a patient for an inoperable brain tumor did not owe a duty of care to a third party injured when the patient suffered a grand mal seizure while driving, Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled in affirming summary judgment.
A tortious interference suit over contractual obligations arising under a pension plan was not completely preempted by ERISA, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
A call spreadsheet evidencing a robbery defendant’s cellphone communications was admissible at trial under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in affirming a conviction.
An appeal in a medical malpractice case wasn’t rendered untimely by the plaintiffs’ failure to electronically file a critical motion in the trial court under the correct docket number, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
An employer didn’t violate the Americans with Disabilities Act when it required an employee to undergo a mental examination after he made threatening comments at work, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming judgment.
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment did not require the deletion of parole restrictions on consecutive sentences that cumulatively exceeded a juvenile defendant’s life expectancy, the Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.
The mother and adult daughter of the victim of an airplane crash had the capacity to sue the federal government for the alleged negligence of a flight controller, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
New York defense attorneys were having a good laugh back in 2009. The snickering was over the story of a well-known medical malpractice lawyer who lost his case after turning down an $8 million settlement offer.
But no one’s laughing now.
A California judge has thrown out a $6.5 million product liability verdict against Takeda Pharmaceuticals, deciding that a key expert witness should not have been allowed to testify that the diabetes drug Actos was the cause of a man’s bladder cancer.
Proof of malicious intent is not required to prevent the bankruptcy discharge of a debt that arose from a trustee’s self-dealing.