In The Legal’s Medical Malpractice supplement, read about how not being entirely truthful to your doctor can affect your case, the debate over whether to cut the state’s venue rule and the complex landscape of EHR and medical malpractice litigation.
Accuracy and honesty are critical to the patient-doctor relationship, yet studies show that up to 38 percent of patients concealed significant facts when undergoing medical treatment.
The Civil Procedural Rules Committee’s proposed rescission of the venue rule in medical malpractice cases has sparked spirited debate in legislative, medical, legal and underwriting spheres.
Electronic health records (EHR) are as common in the modern health care landscape as needles and syringes. This is thanks in large part to the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), created in 2009.
In a move that shocked health care practitioners and facilities throughout the state, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Civil Procedural Rules Committee published a notice on Dec. 22, 2018, that it would be considering a major change to the rule governing venue in medical practice lawsuits.
In an age where the personal injury lawyer glorifies mass tort litigation, MDLs, and class actions, I prefer the challenge of the car crash, slip and fall on debris or ice, construction worker accident, the defective product or the negligent doctor or hospital.
A series of precedential cases addresses the use of opinions of nontestifying experts.