When I was a practicing trial lawyer, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away (okay, so it was actually Rhode Island), our state supreme court recognized lack of informed consent as a basis for liability in medical malpractice cases. In doing so, it held that the risks that must be disclosed are those that a reasonable patient would have considered in deciding whether or not to undergo the procedure in question. Of course, expert testimony is necessary to establish what all of the material risks (disclosed and undisclosed) of the procedure are, what the alternative treatments are, etc.
Revisiting an old blog is often a useful exercise. For us at Vident, this particular post is always relevant, because our business is providing experts, and we’re always focused on the “why” as well as the “how” when we promote our services. So if you haven’t seen this one, or even if you have, it’s a useful reminder of why we do what we do and how completely you can rely on us to do it right.
I’ve previously written about the surprising (to me) number of reported cases in which “the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate expert opinion on causation during discovery, resulting in summary judgment for the defendant.” See https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2020/product-liability-defendant-wins-summary-judgment-because-plaintiff%E2%80%99s-expert-offered-no and previous blog posts cited therein.
Jeff Catalano, a longtime client of ours, is one of Massachusetts’s leading medical malpractice / products liability / personal injury attorneys. He recently wrote this article for his firm’s occasional email newsletter, and he has graciously consented to our request to reprint it here.
One Important Immunity Achieved: Healthcare Providers from Lawsuits
By Jeffrey N. Catalano
In evaluating a complex medical malpractice case, where review by one or more specialists could be costly, the plaintiff’s attorney may want a preliminary flat-fee merit review (sometimes called a screening review) to help determine whether the case is worth pursuing. We are pleased to announce that Vident Partners now provides this service. Our reviewer is board certified in internal medicine and has 38 years of experience in primary care, hospital medicine, quality control, utilization review and legal consulting. The fee is $850 for up to 4 hours of work, $350/hr thereafter. If you’v
As every trial lawyer knows, the admissibility of a vast array of evidence is committed to the trial court’s discretion. (Or “sound discretion,” as some appellate courts put it, though as far as I can tell it means the same thing.) Consequently, one of the unavoidably nerve-wracking aspects of litigation is that Judge A and Judge B might reach opposite conclusions on the admissibility of the same evidence, yet both rulings could be upheld on appeal because neither ruling was an abuse of discretion. So, without in any way denigrating the importance of our skill and experience in trial adv
As the managing partner of Healthcare Litigation Support and (after our name change) Vident Partners, I’ve had the opportunity to assist in hundreds of medical malpractice cases. I’ve provided expert witnesses to attorneys from large and small firms, both plaintiff and defense, throughout the United States as well as Canada and the U.S. Virgin Islands. I don’t claim to be an expert on medical malpractice law, but I’m experienced enough to understand why these litigations begin, how they proceed, and how they resolve.
Vident Partners was founded as Healthcare Litigation Support in 2005. We originally focused on providing experts for medical malpractice and other personal injury litigation. Our consulting experts and expert witnesses were specialists in medicine, pharmacology, biomedical engineering, health care administration and operations, and other healthcare-related fields. Stewart v.
Article 1, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: “All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have a remedy by due course of law….” In Yanakos v.
The case is Ashland Hospital Corp. v. Lewis, http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2018-SC-000276-DG.pdf (8/29/2019). The defendant, an interventional radiologist, performed a cerebral angiogram to assist in diagnosing the cause of the plaintiff’s chronic headaches. A recovery room nurse told the defendant that the plaintiff was complaining of headache and scotoma (spots in his field of vision). These symptoms may indicate a stroke, but they also are not uncommon after a cerebral angiogram.
