<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Dr. Lawrence M. Poliner v. Presbyterian Hospital update	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/dr-lawrence-m-poliner-v-presbyterian-hospital-update/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/dr-lawrence-m-poliner-v-presbyterian-hospital-update/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:23:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Update: Lawrence Poliner v. Texas Health Systems appeal		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/dr-lawrence-m-poliner-v-presbyterian-hospital-update/comment-page-1/#comment-26134</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Update: Lawrence Poliner v. Texas Health Systems appeal]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:23:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4084#comment-26134</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] For this, Poliner sued for defamation and under federal antitrust law, alleging that other cardiologists were trying to dominate the market and prevent his competition. The five-month suspension had federal immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq. (just one of many federal tort reforms that promote safety), but the trial court held that the 29-day limited-privileges created a cause of action that should go to a jury. Poliner lost $10,000 in income over that time &#8220;but was awarded more than $90 million in defamation damages, nearly all for mental anguish and injury to career. The jury also awarded $110 million in punitive damages&#8221;&#8211;despite the fact that Poliner would have to prove damages were caused by the allegedly unprivileged temporary limitation rather than by the five-month suspension. We covered the initial $366 million verdict in 2004, the outraged medical blogosphere reaction, and the remittitur to a still ludicrous $22.5 million in 2006. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] For this, Poliner sued for defamation and under federal antitrust law, alleging that other cardiologists were trying to dominate the market and prevent his competition. The five-month suspension had federal immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq. (just one of many federal tort reforms that promote safety), but the trial court held that the 29-day limited-privileges created a cause of action that should go to a jury. Poliner lost $10,000 in income over that time &#8220;but was awarded more than $90 million in defamation damages, nearly all for mental anguish and injury to career. The jury also awarded $110 million in punitive damages&#8221;&#8211;despite the fact that Poliner would have to prove damages were caused by the allegedly unprivileged temporary limitation rather than by the five-month suspension. We covered the initial $366 million verdict in 2004, the outraged medical blogosphere reaction, and the remittitur to a still ludicrous $22.5 million in 2006. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
