Articles Posted in Researching Experts

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including perinatal care expert witnesses. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task experts at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog:

Joint and several liability. A third strategy that states frequently employ to reform their medical liability system is to modify another legal doctrine, joint and several liability, which is common to cases in which more than one person caused the harm. The joint and several liability doctrine permits holding a single defendant responsible for the entire damage versus being held responsible for the percentage of the damages that can be reasonably attributed to them.A number of states have modified this doctrine by separating joint liability from several liability, thus establishing a mechanism of proportionately assigning harm among the defendants

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including neonatal care expert witnesses. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task experts at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog:

Alternatively, those who oppose modifying the collateral source rule assert that plaintiffs do not receive double recovery if they are paid up front by another source because many insurance companies, especially public payers, require that the plaintiff essentially pay back any money that is subsequently recovered in a medical malpractice case. (8) Opponents also contend that elimination or modification of the collateral source rule helps health care providers avoid paying for the full amount of the actual damage(s) they caused, thereby decreasing full accountability for their actions.

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including birth defects expert witnesses. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task experts at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog:

Modifying the collateral source rule. A second approach to medical liability reform that a number of states adopt is modifying the collateral source rule. Intact, the collateral source rule prohibits defendants from introducing information at trial or during negotiation for the purpose of off setting the damages awarded by asserting that the plaintiff may have received compensation from another source (eg, worker’s compensation, another Insurer). (5)

Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont permit consideration of collateral source payments received by the patient when damages are awarded in medical malpractice cases. (6) Proponents of this type of reform argue that “[w]hen a plaintiff receives compensation from their insurance company and again at trial, the Insurance proceeds do not represent actual compensation for an Individual’s injuries, but rather a source of windfall.”

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including perinatal injuries care expert witnesses. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task experts at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog:

Only 13 states still use the combined form of the joint and several liability doctrine for medical malpractice cases. (3) Many states that have modified the doctrine will enforce joint and several liability, however, when the health care provider is found to have acted “in concert with others” or with “intentional malice” or when the health care provider’s acts attributed to more than 50% of the harm. (3) Additionally, states such as California and Ohio apply joint and several liability to only the economic portion of the damages and not to the noneconomic portion. (3)

One rationale for maintaining the original application of joint and several liability is to protect patients from having to bring cases against every health care provider who participated in the act that resulted in harm. (10) Conversely, the rationale for modifying the joint and several liability rule is to decrease the number of additional court cases that will result when the single defendant attempts to recover damages from the other health care providers involved. In addition, although joint and several liability may encourage defendants to settle out of court to avoid being found responsible for the entire damage award, proponents of the rule-modification strategy contend that “it has had the effect of turning lawsuits into all out searches to find the most financially lucrative defendants.”

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including birth trauma expert witnesses. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task experts at National Medical Consultants continue from the December 15th blog entry:

For example, Alaska, California, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia laws prohibit a patient from receiving more than $250,000 for noneconomic damages. (3) One rationale behind noneconomic damage caps is that because such damages are extremely difficult to quantify, a jury often will inflate the award to the injured patient. In turn, such awards are believed to increase the costs associated with medical malpractice insurance (eg, increased medical insurance premiums that then create increased health care costs).

Other states, including Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Virginia, have laws that apply in all injury-related cases, medical liability Included, that cap the monetary amount that an injured patient can receive for all damages, both economic (eg, lost wages) and noneconomic. (4) Further, a number of states have adopted laws that restrict the amount of and the conditions under which monetary damages are awarded to punish the health care provider for a “wanton disregard of [patient] safety” (ie, punitive damages).

In Procedures for Evaluating Bathing Facility Slip and Fall Accidents, accident investigation expert witness Melvin M. Friedlander, P.E. writes:

Bathing facility slip and fall injuries are a significant part of the great number of slip and fall accidents that occur each year in the United States. As a consequence, they are an important factor in personal injury allegations in both litigation and insurance claims. One of the key problems faced both by attorneys and insurance adjustors, however, is sufficient proof that the facility at which the accident took place was inherently dangerous and not caused by any inappropriate action on the part of the injured. And the key suspect in the search of this proof is the slip resistance of the surface of the bathtub or shower.

Professional engineering expert witnesses may opine on ISO 9000. Here is a summary of ISO9000 from the ISO9000 Council.

Section 5: Measurement, Analysis and Improvement

The last section of the ISO 9001:2008 standard closes the loop by providing requirements for measurement and monitoring activities, so that the company can immediately identify when not on track. Measurement and monitoring activities also include internal audits and the monitoring of customer perception as to whether the company has fulfilled customer requirements. All of these activities must be defined, planned and implemented. Measuring and monitoring allows the company to manage by fact, not by guess.

Professional engineering expert witnesses may opine on ISO 9000. Here is a summary of ISO9000 from the ISO9000 Council.

Section 4: Product Realization

The ISO 9001:2008 standard defines Product Realization as “that sequence of processes and sub processes required to achieve the product.” This is how your product is designed, produced, tested, handled, shipped, etc. This section also applies to service providers. Emphasis is placed on how the company understands, communicates and actually meets customer requirements. This section also contains various requirements for the design of products and for the planning of processes, projects and services.

Professional engineering expert witnesses may opine on ISO 9000. Here is a summary of ISO9000 from the ISO9000 Council.

Section 3: Resource Management

This section of ISO 9001:2008 clarifies the requirement for a company to determine and provide, in a timely manner, resources (for example, equipment, facilities, etc) needed to implement and improve the processes of the ISO 9001 quality management system and to address customer satisfaction. This section also includes requirements for employee training, as well as for the physical facilities and the work environment.

Financial planning expert witnesses may opine on Antenuptial Agreements defined here by the Association of Divorce Financial Planners, Inc.:

ANTENUPTIAL AGREEMENT – a legal contract signed by two people prior to marriage which states limitations to spouse’s rights to property, support, or inheritance if the marriage ends in divorce.