I trust no reader of our blog needs a summary of this well-known (not to say notorious) case. The indictment was handed down on August 14, 2023; trial is scheduled to begin on October 3, 2023. On August 16, the defendant disclosed seven proposed expert witnesses.
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?
In my ongoing chronicle of sports-related litigation, https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/sports-law, I have previously had occasion to cite the work of Michael McCann, Sports Illustrated’s legal analyst and the founding director of the University of New Hampshire Law School’s Sports and Entertainment Law Institute. Professor McCann has outdone himself in a just-posted article, “U.S. Women’s National Team Challenges Use of U.S.
An important question in medical malpractice cases is whether the plaintiff’s standard of care expert must be board certified in the same specialty as the defendant, or must at least practice in the same area of specialization without board certification. Many states have enacted controlling statutes on this issue. If the answer to the “same specialty” question is yes, the plaintiff frequently needs two experts – one to opine on the standard of care, and one to address causation. In a 2018 case, the South Carolina Supreme Court carefully construed the relevant statute and held that, unde
The U.S.
