Lawyers are trying to gauge the impact of a new Connecticut mandate requiring mediation in medical malpractice cases. So far, the apparent consensus is the law may take smaller cases off the litigation track, but won't resolve big-ticket cases that require expert opinions and extensive discovery. The provision calls for the presiding judge in the district where a med-mal case is filed to refer it to a 120-day mediation period or another alternative dispute resolution "before the close of the pleadings."
August 05, 2010 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Plaintiff and defense lawyers are trying to gauge the overall impact of a new state mandate requiring mediation in medical malpractice cases.
So far, the apparent consensus is the new law may take smaller cases off the litigation track, but won’t resolve big-ticket cases that require the opinions of experts and extensive discovery.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaThe current term of office for United States Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen in...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
