Sign in to follow
Search Results

0 results for 'Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier'

You can use to get even better search results
October 04, 2011 |

Recent Decision on Federally Funded Health Centers

In their Medical Malpractice column, Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier of Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore discuss a Second Circuit decision that addressed the accrual date and equitable tolling for malpractice suits against federally funded centers, which are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.
12 minute read
June 03, 2008 |

Medical Malpractice

Thomas A. Moore, senior partner at Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, and Matthew Gaier, a partner at the firm, write that it has been eight years since they last addressed Medicaid liens. During that time there have been important changes in the law that have substantially altered the landscape with regard to such liens. The most important development has been the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Ahlborn, which overturned onerous state decisional law.
11 minute read
June 01, 2010 |

Informed Consent and the Reasonably Prudent Patient

In their Medical Malpractice column, Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier, partners at Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, write: We have heard attorneys and judges express an understanding that plaintiffs asserting informed consent causes of action are required to adduce expert testimony to the effect that a reasonably prudent person would not have undergone the procedure if fully informed of the risks and alternatives. However, recent decisions demonstrate that this is not the case.
9 minute read
February 03, 2009 |

Medical Malpractice

Thomas A. Moore, a senior partner of Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, and Matthew Gaier, a partner at the firm, write that whether a physician-patient relationship between the injured person and the doctor whose treatment is being criticized is one of the more vexing issues in medical malpractice litigation and a recurring theme in appellate decisions. One type of case which has often hinged on the determination of whether there was a physician-patient relationship involves a physical examination undertaken not for the purpose of treatment, but to evaluate the person examined for the benefit of third parties such as insurers, employers or adversaries in personal injury litigation. A recent Appellate Division opinion has taken a new view of such cases.
12 minute read
June 05, 2007 |

Medical Malpractice

Thomas A. Moore, senior partner at Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, and Matthew Gaier, a partner at the firm, write that in addition to basic malpractice, potential claims stemming from organ donations and transplants can involve unique areas of potential liability, raising issues of whether a duty is owed to nonpatients, and liability based upon malfeasance, where a person in need of an organ does not receive it due to negligence.
11 minute read
August 05, 2008 |

Medical Malpractice

Thomas A. Moore, senior partner of Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, and Matthew Gaier, a partner at the firm, review a case that may seem like a run-of-the-mill malpractice claim for failure to timely diagnose. However, defendants asserted that they could not be held liable because the plaintiff was a participant in a human research study regarding modes of diagnosis and therefore, the defendents asserted, there was no physician-patient relationship.
11 minute read
October 01, 2013 |

Recent Decisions on Res Ipsa Loquitur

In their Medical Malpractice column, Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier of Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore discuss res ipsa loquitur, which is most often applied in medical malpractice actions that stem from injuries sustained during surgical procedures, and a recent Court of Appeals decision discussing the doctrine's applicability when the plaintiff alleged a surgeon left a wire in plaintiff's lung intentionally.
12 minute read
April 07, 2009 |

Medical Malpractice

Thomas A. Moore, senior partner of Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, and Matthew Gaier, a partner at the firm, write that cases involving a doctor who, when examining an individual on behalf of a third party, commits an affirmatively negligent act that causes direct injury to the person being examined are fairly straightforward. Determining the liability of a doctor who makes an affirmative representation regarding medical findings or gives affirmative advice for treatment to the person being examined, which the person then relies upon, is more complicated, and warrants an examination of those cases in which such claims have been recognized and those that have been rejected.
13 minute read
April 02, 2013 |

Liability Stemming From Involuntary Commitments

In their Medical Malpractice column, Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier of Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore review cases demonstrating that while the current version of the Mental Hygiene Law has provided vast improvements to the system for involuntarily psychiatric admissions, occasional errors continue to be made. When those wrongful admissions result from a failure to comply with the statutory procedures or when the determination to admit or retain amounts to medical malpractice, actions seeking damages will lie.
13 minute read

TRENDING STORIES

    More from ALM

    More from ALM

    Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.

    Resources