Surprisingly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently split 5-4 on this seemingly noncontroversial question. The case is Strauss v.
As Peter explained in last week’s post, https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2019/blood-alcohol-hipaa-and-4th-amendment, in addition to our longtime (nearly 15-year) healthcare expert referral practice, we provide consulting and testifying experts in all fields of specialization for all types of litigation. I thought it might be useful to list some specific examples of our expanded service. In 2018/2019 we referred, and our clients engaged, experts in the following fields (in no particular order):
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.
As I pointed out less than a month ago (see my August 27th post), sports-related litigation is a growth business these days. The latest example is Antonio Brown’s anticipated grievance against the New England Patriots, seeking nearly $10 million in unpaid salary and guarantees. Sports Illustrated’s legal analyst, Michael McCann, has an excellent article about the case, including an in-depth discussion of the legal and factual issues, at
Today’s decision-makers require cogent translation from the emerging digital languages of Cybersecurity, privacy, computer forensics, and data analytics to the languages of business and law. Flatwater Forensics is a boutique consultancy built on this foundational principle. Our team employs a singular focus—helping you understand and successfully navigate the often perilous confluence of data and your business ventures.
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.
In internal investigations and across substantive areas of litigation, we have encountered a new and unmistakable reality—data is not a loose collection of independent things like documents, devices or accounts; Data is a System.
Historically, professional sports has not been viewed as a field rich in opportunities for litigation (Flood v. Kuhn notwithstanding). Over the past few decades, however, there has been a substantial increase sports-related litigation, which in turn has provided ample opportunities for experts to assist both plaintiffs and defendants.
The Kansas Supreme Court recently struck down a $250,000 statutory cap on noneconomic damages in all personal injury cases, holding that the statute violated the right to a jury trial guaranteed by the Kansas Constitution. Hilburn v. Enerpipe, http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2019/20190614/112765.pdf (6/14/2019). In doing so, the court reversed a 7-year-old precedent, Miller v.
