Genetic testing and genetic screening are related but distinct approaches to identifying genetic variations and potential health risks.
Genetic testing is focused on individuals. It is used to diagnose specific conditions in people who show symptoms; to confirm or rule out suspected genetic disorders; to determine an individual’s risk of develop certain diseases; and to identify carriers of genetic mutations the could be passed to offspring. It is targeted, examining specific genes or sets of genes in detail.
We recently posted a general overview of failure to warn cases, https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2024/product-liability-%E2%80%93-failure-warn. That post concluded as follows: “These cases often involve complex medical and scientific concepts, so working with experienced experts is essential. Vident Partners has safety experts (which includes failure to warn) in a wide variety of fields.”
Vident Partners is almost at its 20th anniversary, having begun its long run in the expert referral business as Healthcare Litigation Support (HLS) in 2005.
A failure to warn case is a type of product liability lawsuit in which the plaintiff claims that a manufacturer, distributor, or seller failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions about the safe use of the product. Failure to warn is a marketing defect, not a product defect.
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), also known as the CMS Innovation Center, is a division within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Established by the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the CMS Innovation Center's primary mission is to test innovative payment and service delivery models with the goal of reducing costs while preserving or enhancing the quality of care within Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Key Objectives:
The reference is to a 2021 post, https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2021/shooting-fish-barrel. Opening paragraph: “That’s an unkind title, I know. But really, when the plaintiff’s attorney submitted a pharmacist’s affidavit in opposition to a physician’s motion for summary judgment (which was supported by a physician’s affidavit), what did he think was going to happen?”
About four months ago, I blogged about the surprising (to me) prevalence of noncompete agreements in medicine. “[N]early half of primary care physicians in group practices and more than a third of physicians employed at hospitals or free-standing clinics [are] bound by a noncompete agreement. The prevalence of noncompete agreements has increased as more doctors are now employed by hospitals or large health systems, which have been steadily buying up group medical practices . . .
In Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928), which we all remember from our first-year torts class, Judge Benjamin Cardozo restated, in his uniquely pithy manner, the common law rule that whether a duty of care exists depends on the foreseeability of harm: “The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension. . . .
Health insurance fraud, broadly defined, is any deceptive practice by healthcare or healthcare-related providers (physicians, hospitals, clinics, diagnostic testing labs, certain allied health professionals, suppliers of durable medical equipment, etc.) to unlawfully obtain payments from private insurance companies, Medicare and/or Medicaid. These fraudulent activities take a wide variety of forms, bearing witness to the inventiveness of those bent on health insurance fraud. Here are some of the common types, with examples provided for clarification if needed.
The plaintiff in a medical malpractice case engaged two experts, who were deposed in the course of discovery. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment; the plaintiff submitted affidavits from the two experts in her opposition to the motion; and the defendants moved to strike the affidavits. The trial court granted the motion to strike and the motion for summary judgment because the affidavits included “information that is materially different from the deposition each affiant provided. There is no sufficient explanation for the change in testimony by either [expert], other than
