State, Merck reach $10.5M settlement
March 17, 2008
The state Attorney General’s Office has reached a $10.5 million settlement with drug maker Merck & Co. to settle a case involving drug rebates under Medicaid, according to the State House News Service.
Patient develops infection from gauze in wound
March 17, 2008
A 77-year-old man was a hospital patient from April 2004 to June 2004, during which time he underwent three spinal disc surgeries.
Woman treated for HIV though she didn’t have the virus
March 17, 2008
A woman was diagnosed as HIV positive in 1994 by anonymous testing and reported her results to her gynecologist, who referred her to an HIV specialist at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center. Read more
Med-mal settlement approved for $6M
March 17, 2008
A $6 million settlement agreement has been approved in a medical malpractice suit against three doctors and five nurses over injuries allegedly suffered by a Dudley couple’s son at birth, according to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Read more
Safety questions about new vaccine may prompt suits
March 17, 2008
Recent reports of adverse reactions to a new vaccine for young women, including eleven deaths, may lead to suits against Merck, the vaccine’s manufacturer.
A number of states have mandated the vaccine, Gardasil, for school-aged girls.
Anti-markup rule delayed by CMS
March 17, 2008
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has decided to delay for one year the application of an “anti-markup” provision that primarily affects groups that purchase interpreting services, such as the reading of X-rays and MRIs. Read more
FDA: Drug makers can provide details on ‘off-label’ uses
March 17, 2008
The Food and Drug Administration has issued draft guidelines that would allow drug and device companies to distribute medical or scientific journal articles about unapproved uses of FDA-approved drugs and devices to physicians.
Q&A: Expert witness standards
March 17, 2008
Q: Should the state Legislature set minimum standards dictating who may testify as an expert witness in professional liability cases?
“Those of us who are firm believers in the jury system are in favor of allowing jurors to make the determination as to who is qualified and who is not, always subject to cross-examination. Setting arbitrary minimum standards would only serve as an uneven and unfair restriction of testimony by experts. It would in effect restrict the fundamental right to a jury trial by precluding jurors from hearing testimony from those who may shed light on a subject but not meet arbitrary standards set forth by the Legislature. Who can testify needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. To apply a uniform standard that is not flexible would be unfair to everyone on both sides.”
—Andrew C. Meyer Jr.
Founding partner and medical malpractice
plaintiffs’ attorney, Lubin & Meyer, Boston
“It should. The Legislature has a duty to the people of Massachusetts to protect them, including a duty to set guidelines. In many cases the experts are coming in from other states, but there should be some sort of connection between the experts and Massachusetts. They should have to take a legal education course specific to Massachusetts to qualify them and to ensure some sort of continuity. There should be some connection between an expert witness and the standards of care and practice in Massachusetts.”
—Anne M. Gobi
State representative, D-Spencer, member of the Joint Committee on Public Health
“Micromanaging trials by setting minimum standards for experts would be a mistake. Trial courts in Massachusetts have exercised discretion broadly and reasonably. The U.S. Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have given the lower courts appropriate guidance. Strict minimum criteria might result in the exclusion of relevant and appropriate evidence.”
—Martin C. Foster
Managing partner and medical malpractice defense attorney,
Foster & Eldridge, Cambridge
“Ideally it should be left to medical societies to create standards for this type of testimony. There may be some value in the Legislature making some minimal requirements that are consistent with guidelines from medical societies.”
—Karen McAlmon, M.D., F.A.A.P.
Neonatologist, Childrens Hospital, Boston and
Winchester Hospital, Winchester
Medical expert witness standards long overdue
March 17, 2008
By Maryanne C. Bombaugh, M.D.
Historically, judges have been responsible for deciding who is qualified to testify in their courtrooms.
Their decisions on admitting expert testimony are often critical to the outcomes of medical malpractice cases, and the factors judges should consider in making those decisions constitute one of the more contentious areas in professional liability law.
Doctors worry about new liability for prescriptions
March 17, 2008
Physicians are concerned about the recent Massachusetts court decision holding they may be liable if a patient who is taking medication they prescribed injures a third party.
Doctors shouldn’t change their prescription practices as a result, insurers and attorneys advise, but they should be very careful to document their warnings – and in some cases they should follow up more carefully to see if a patient is becoming impaired by a medication’s side effects.
Loading ...
