Posts Tagged ‘medical’

August 17 roundup

Nancy Pelosi to address trial lawyers convention

She’ll be opening the AAJ annual convention tonight in San Francisco. Charles Krauthammer thinks the coziness between Big Law and certain parts of the political establishment may explain a lot about the faltering status of health care reform.

More: “Media Barred from Speaker Pelosi’s Speech to Trial Lawyers“. And John Steele Gordon at Commentary “Contentions” offers some ideas for health care reform that were probably not included in Pelosi’s speech.

June 7 roundup

  • Pennsylvania Department of Labor launches probe on whether reality-TV show “Jon & Kate Plus 8” violates child labor laws [Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog, Hirsch/Workplace Law Prof via Ohio Employer’s Law]
  • Dispute over termination of Navy aircraft contract called “Jarndyce v. Jarndyce of U.S. legal system” [WSJ Law Blog]
  • Medical tourism, cont’d: “It appears that ‘we’re easier to sue’ is the uniquely American defense to medicine outsourcing.” [KevinMD]
  • New Oklahoma law protects farmers from neighbors’ suits complaining of nuisance from farm activity [Enid, Okla., News]
  • For unusually bad advice on how to save GM and Detroit, Michael Moore as usual comes through [Popehat]
  • Lawyer reprimanded for telling party she should be cut up, shipped overseas [NJLJ, ABA Journal]
  • Call for reform of UK laws banning press interviews of jurors after verdict [Times Online first, second articles and commentary]
  • Coming soon: campaign against depiction of smoking in Raymond Chandler books, Edward Hopper paintings [CEI “Open Market”]

March 25 roundup

  • Driver on narcotic painkillers crashes car, lawyer says pharmacists liable [Las Vegas Review-Journal]
  • Who’s that cyber-chasing the Buffalo Continental Air crash? Could it be noted San Francisco-based plaintiff’s firm Lieff Cabraser? [Turkewitz]
  • Axl Rose no fan of former Guns N’ Roses bandmate or his royalty-seeking attorneys [Reuters]
  • Cheese shop owner speaks out against punitive tariff on Roquefort, now due to take effect April 23 [video at Reason “Hit and Run”, earlier]
  • Too many cops and too many lawsuits in city schools, says Errol Louis [NY Daily News]
  • Law professor and prominent blogger Ann Althouse is getting married — to one of her commenters. Congratulations! [her blog, Greenfield] Kalim Kassam wonders when we can look forward to the Meg Ryan film “You’ve Got Blog Comments”.
  • “Louisiana panel recommends paying fees of wrongfully accused Dr. Anna Pou” (charged in deaths of patients during Hurricane Katrina) [NMissCommentor]
  • U.K.: “Privacy Group Wants To Shut Down Google Street View” [Mashable]

“The price of disability law”

As we reported a while back, a New Jersey rheumatologist has been required to pay $400,000 to a deaf patient for refusing to provide (at his expense) a sign language interpreter for her. (Instead, he exchanged written notes with help from her family members; there is no allegation that she suffered any physical harm.) Now Stephen Dubner of Freakonomics covers the case and notes that it could have an unintended and unpleasant consequence: doctors are now given a financial incentive to find excuses to turn away deaf patients from their practice.

Update: Passalaqua v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

I got an email asking me what happened to the case in the following post:

While his wife, Jeanette Passalaqua, was giving birth, Steven fainted in the delivery room, fracturing his skull and dying two days later. This is, says the family, the fault of Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Southern California Permanente Medical Group Inc. “‘This avoidable tragedy was a direct result of Kaiser’s ordinary negligence in failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injuries to Steven,’ according to the suit, which was filed last week in San Bernardino County Superior Court.” So if your maternity ward is rubber-padded next time you go there, you know why.

So I looked it up in the San Bernardino County Superior Court docket database: the case settled almost immediately. The docket does not report the amount of the settlement, which could conceivably have been for a token amount, but one can infer that there was some substantial money involved, because the settlement required proof of the purchase of annuities for the two plaintiff minors, which normally wouldn’t be worth the transactions costs if the sums were tiny. But that inference may be incorrect. If ever I find myself in San Bernardino, maybe I’ll check the paper record to see if there’s more public detail.