GAO Report On Medical Malpractice Excludes New Jersey
The New Jersey Law Journal reports this week that the federal General Accounting Office's (GAO) July 2003 report on the nation's medical malpractice insurance crisis failed to include any analysis of New Jersey insurance carriers, healthcare providers and laws. The report analyzed seven large states, but noticeably excluded New Jersey despite several one-day strikes here and a committed lobbying effort in Trenton to cap non-economic damages at $250,000 in med mal cases. Maybe the GAO's exclusion of New Jersey points to the inadequacy of the report itself? The findings are pretty much as expected, on the one hand pointing the finger at verdict sizes and on the other pointing to unanticipated premium adjustments. Maybe the state Insurance Commission's upcoming hearings on Princeton Insurance Co. decision to stop writing new policies on physicians by the end of August will shed some more light on this issue.
Thursday, August 7, 2003
Tuesday, August 5, 2003
No New Jersey PI Firms On National Law Journal's Hot List
Last week's National Law Journal profiled a so-called "Hot 50" of plaintiff's law firms located around the country. Law firms? Not really, since the list excluded solo and small firms of two-five lawyers. Around the country? Not really, since the list basically covered only LA, NY and DC. Apparently, the National Law Journal missed the nearly 500,000 solo and small practitioners around the country who practice PI work. And I understand that there are New Jersey PI lawyers who have hot practices.
Last week's National Law Journal profiled a so-called "Hot 50" of plaintiff's law firms located around the country. Law firms? Not really, since the list excluded solo and small firms of two-five lawyers. Around the country? Not really, since the list basically covered only LA, NY and DC. Apparently, the National Law Journal missed the nearly 500,000 solo and small practitioners around the country who practice PI work. And I understand that there are New Jersey PI lawyers who have hot practices.
Monday, August 4, 2003
Legal Writing Update
My "Write Now" column on lexisONE this month concerns proofreading for solo and small firm lawyers. Check out how PI lawyers can make writing and editing easier and more efficient.
My "Write Now" column on lexisONE this month concerns proofreading for solo and small firm lawyers. Check out how PI lawyers can make writing and editing easier and more efficient.
Something To Chew On
A sidebar to the proposed "Big Mac" class actions that get so much attention in the media. Today's New York Times reports on the growing number of fast food workers who are getting fired for being overweight. Ironic? The article profiles a New Jersey worker who successfully sued her employer under the ADA arguing that, at least on her facts, being overweight was a disability.
A sidebar to the proposed "Big Mac" class actions that get so much attention in the media. Today's New York Times reports on the growing number of fast food workers who are getting fired for being overweight. Ironic? The article profiles a New Jersey worker who successfully sued her employer under the ADA arguing that, at least on her facts, being overweight was a disability.
Roundup Of July Cases
New Jersey Supreme Court, Equity and Law Reports
GUICHARDO v. RUBINFELD, A-112-01 (N.J. 7-16-2003)
A-112 September Term 2001
Decided July 16, 2003
Application of the discovery rule to toll the running of the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action.
New Jersey Superior Court Reports
KINSELLA v. WELCH, A-2985-02T2 (N.J. Super. 7-15-2003)
No. A-2985-02T2
Decided July 15, 2003
Defendants NYT Television and the New York Times Company appeal order which determined that a videotape of plaintiff's treatment at Jersey Shore Medical Center is not protected by the Newsperson's Privilege, N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21 to 21.8, and therefore must be produced for examination by plaintiff.
New Jersey Superior Court Reports
ADAMS v. NEW YORK GIANTS, A-3120-01T3 (N.J. Super. 7-3-2003)
No. A-3120-01T3
Decided July 3, 2003
Appellant George Adams appeals from a final order of the Division of Workers' Compensation dismissing his employee claim petition for failure to file a claim within the two year statutory limitation period of N.J.S.A. 34:15-51. Adams filed his petition on July 25, 1996. The respondent, New York Giants, filed an answer along with a motion to dismiss the petition as time barred. Thereafter, Adams filed for medical and temporary benefits seeking payment of past medical expenses for hip replacement surgery as well as future expenses for a second hip replacement. An evidentiary hearing was held on both Adams' application and the Giants' motion to dismiss on varying dates between January 21, 1999 and June 21, 2001. On January 29, 2002, the judge of compensation issued an order and written opinion dismissing the claim for lack of jurisdiction due to Adams' failure to file the petition within the time limitation of N.J.S.A. 34:15-51. Adams appeals from that order.
New Jersey Supreme Court, Equity and Law Reports
TISCHLER v. WATTS, A-77-01 (N.J. 7-24-2003)
A-77 September Term 2001
Decided July 24, 2003
In November 1995, David C. Watts, M.D., performed a surgical procedure known as reduction mammoplasty on plaintiff who was fifteen years old at the time. More than three years later, plaintiff returned to Dr. Watts with ailments resulting from the reduction surgery, including permanent loss of the ability to breastfeed, loss of tactile sensation, scarring, and disfigurement. Subsequently, on November 24, 1999, plaintiff hired an attorney and brought suit against Dr. Watts. The complaint alleged that Dr. Watts's deviation from the standard of care in performing the reduction mammoplasty caused plaintiff's complications.
New Jersey Superior Court Reports
CZEPAS v. SCHENK, A-3583-01T5 (N.J. Super. 7-3-2003)
No. A-3583-01T5
Decided July 3, 2003
In September 1997, plaintiff was injured as he tried to jump into a rolling car which was about to strike his wife. He was treated for his injuries by defendant medical providers. Believing he received inadequate medical care, in the spring of 1999 plaintiff contacted counsel who had an orthopedic specialist review plaintiff's medical records. Although the specialist suggested that one or more of the healthcare providers may have deviated from the standard of care, he was unable to specify any particular deviation or attribute responsibility to any particular provider.
New Jersey Supreme Court, Equity and Law Reports
GUICHARDO v. RUBINFELD, A-112-01 (N.J. 7-16-2003)
A-112 September Term 2001
Decided July 16, 2003
Application of the discovery rule to toll the running of the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action.
New Jersey Superior Court Reports
KINSELLA v. WELCH, A-2985-02T2 (N.J. Super. 7-15-2003)
No. A-2985-02T2
Decided July 15, 2003
Defendants NYT Television and the New York Times Company appeal order which determined that a videotape of plaintiff's treatment at Jersey Shore Medical Center is not protected by the Newsperson's Privilege, N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21 to 21.8, and therefore must be produced for examination by plaintiff.
New Jersey Superior Court Reports
ADAMS v. NEW YORK GIANTS, A-3120-01T3 (N.J. Super. 7-3-2003)
No. A-3120-01T3
Decided July 3, 2003
Appellant George Adams appeals from a final order of the Division of Workers' Compensation dismissing his employee claim petition for failure to file a claim within the two year statutory limitation period of N.J.S.A. 34:15-51. Adams filed his petition on July 25, 1996. The respondent, New York Giants, filed an answer along with a motion to dismiss the petition as time barred. Thereafter, Adams filed for medical and temporary benefits seeking payment of past medical expenses for hip replacement surgery as well as future expenses for a second hip replacement. An evidentiary hearing was held on both Adams' application and the Giants' motion to dismiss on varying dates between January 21, 1999 and June 21, 2001. On January 29, 2002, the judge of compensation issued an order and written opinion dismissing the claim for lack of jurisdiction due to Adams' failure to file the petition within the time limitation of N.J.S.A. 34:15-51. Adams appeals from that order.
New Jersey Supreme Court, Equity and Law Reports
TISCHLER v. WATTS, A-77-01 (N.J. 7-24-2003)
A-77 September Term 2001
Decided July 24, 2003
In November 1995, David C. Watts, M.D., performed a surgical procedure known as reduction mammoplasty on plaintiff who was fifteen years old at the time. More than three years later, plaintiff returned to Dr. Watts with ailments resulting from the reduction surgery, including permanent loss of the ability to breastfeed, loss of tactile sensation, scarring, and disfigurement. Subsequently, on November 24, 1999, plaintiff hired an attorney and brought suit against Dr. Watts. The complaint alleged that Dr. Watts's deviation from the standard of care in performing the reduction mammoplasty caused plaintiff's complications.
New Jersey Superior Court Reports
CZEPAS v. SCHENK, A-3583-01T5 (N.J. Super. 7-3-2003)
No. A-3583-01T5
Decided July 3, 2003
In September 1997, plaintiff was injured as he tried to jump into a rolling car which was about to strike his wife. He was treated for his injuries by defendant medical providers. Believing he received inadequate medical care, in the spring of 1999 plaintiff contacted counsel who had an orthopedic specialist review plaintiff's medical records. Although the specialist suggested that one or more of the healthcare providers may have deviated from the standard of care, he was unable to specify any particular deviation or attribute responsibility to any particular provider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)