A reference to a patient's smoking history made by a medical expert in a lung cancer-related medical malpractice case warrants a new trial because it was both irrelevant and highly prejudicial, the state Superior Court has ruled.
November 08, 2013 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
A reference to a patient’s smoking history made by a medical expert in a lung cancer-related medical malpractice case warrants a new trial because it was both irrelevant and highly prejudicial, the state Superior Court has ruled.
On Monday, a three-judge panel upheld a Philadelphia judge’s ruling to grant a new trial in Sutch v. Roxborough Memorial Hospital.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
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.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
