Howard v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 172 N.J. 537, 558 (2002). 463.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Howard v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 172 N.J. 537, 558 (2002). 463."

Transcription

1 Court explained that expert testimony would normally be required to prove the increased risk. 462 The second prong of the analysis is whether the substantially increased risk would cause a reasonably prudent patient to decline the procedure. If the defendant s lack of experience did not materially increase the risk from the operation then the alleged misrepresentation could not cause a reasonably prudent patient in plaintiff s position to decline consent to the procedure. 463 The Court concluded that a significant misrepresentation concerning the physician s professional experience might be material to a reasonably prudent patient in deciding whether to permit the doctor to operate. However, the plaintiff must submit expert testimony that the defendant s lack of qualifications or experience significantly increased the risk of the operation. The lack of experience would have to significantly increase the risk of the operation in order to be material to a reasonably prudent patient. Finally, in order to establish proximate causation, the plaintiff must convince a jury that the substantially increased risk would have caused a reasonably prudent patient not to consent to the procedure PRACTICE POINTERS 1. Damages are subject to proof of reasonable medical probability. In Schrantz v. Luancing and Bondi v. Pole, the courts explained that [r]easonable medical certainty or probability refers to the general consensus of recognized medical thought and opinion concerning the probabilities of conditions in the future based on present conditions. 464 The permanency of damages must also meet this standard. 465 It is incumbent on the attorney to explain and define 462. Howard v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 172 N.J. 537, 558 (2002) Howard v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 172 N.J. 537, 558 (2002) Schrantz v. Luancing, 218 N.J. Super. 434, 439 (Law Div. 1986); Bondi v. Pole, 246 N.J. Super. 236, (App. Div. 1991) 465. See Tierney v. St. Michael s Med. Ctr., 214 N.J. Super. 27, 33 (App. Div. 1986). 370 New Jersey Medical Malpractice law 2017 NJ MedMal_Ch04_2016.indd 370

2 PRACTICE POINTERS 4-11 the legal significance of the term reasonable degree of medical probability to all experts. 2. In cases involving a pre-existing condition, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant s negligence increased the risk and was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Model Jury Charge 5.50E, Pre-Existing Condition Increased Risk/Loss of Chance Proximate Cause instructs that the plaintiff has the burden of proving in a medical malpractice case that the defendant s negligence was, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, a proximate cause of harm to the plaintiff. 3. A pre-existing condition is one which by itself had a risk of causing the plaintiff the ultimate harm. Model Jury Charge 5.50E, Pre-Existing Condition Increased Risk/Loss of Chance Proximate Cause defines a pre-existing condition as one which, by itself, had a risk of causing the plaintiff the harm he/she ultimately experienced in this case. In Holdsworth v. Galler, the Appellate Division explained that a pre-existing condition is something that is treated in order to alter or delay the outcome attributable to the condition In cases involving a pre-existing condition, once the plaintiff submits evidence that the defendant s negligence increased the risk and was a substantial factor in causing the harm, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to apportion damages. Model Jury Charge 5.50E, Pre-Existing Condition Increased Risk/Loss of Chance Proximate Cause provides, In cases where the defendant s deviation accelerated or worsened the plaintiff s pre-existing condition, the defendant is responsible for all of the plaintiff s injuries unless the defendant is able to reasonably apportion the damages. If the 466. Holdsworth v. Galler, 345 N.J. Super. 294, 300 (App. Div. 2001). New Jersey Medical Malpractice law NJ MedMal_Ch04_2016.indd 371

3 injuries can be so apportioned, then the defendant is only responsible for the amount of ultimate harm caused by the deviation. 5. A substantial factor has been defined as anything that is not merely remotely or insignificantly related to the ultimate harm or injury. Model Jury Charge 5.50E, Pre-Existing Condition Increased Risk/Loss of Chance Proximate Cause defines substantial factor as follows: If the deviation was only remotely or insignificantly related to the ultimate harm or injury, then the deviation does not constitute a substantial factor. However, a footnote to the Model Jury charge explains, The Court may further explain to the jury in the charge at this point, that any percentage increase in the risk of harm can be considered by the jury to be substantial. 467 It is critical that this point be explained to the jury The trial court must give an ultimate outcome instruction when giving a pre-existing condition charge. In Fischer v. Canario, the Supreme Court concluded, Without the charge, there is the risk that the jurors will reduce their damage award in light of the apportionment of fault they find as part of their verdict. Then, once the trial court makes the same reduction, the plaintiff would receive an inadequate recovery. When a Scafidi damage-apportionment rule is applicable, an ultimate outcome charge generally should be given Model Jury Charge 5.50E, Pre-Existing Condition Increased Risk/Loss of Chance Proximate Cause, n.2 (emphasis added) See also Dubak v. Burdette Tomlin Mem l Hosp., 233 N.J. Super. 441, 452 (App. Div. 1989) (10% increase in the risk of harm satisfied the substantial factor test); Velazquez v. Jiminez, 336 N.J. Super. 10 (App. Div. 2000), aff d, 172 N.J. 240 (2002) (3% increase in the risk of harm satisfied the substantial factor test) Fischer v. Canario, 143 N.J. 235, 253 (1996). 372 New Jersey Medical Malpractice law 2017 NJ MedMal_Ch04_2016.indd 372

4 PRACTICE POINTERS Pursuant to the doctrine of avoidable consequences, the plaintiff s damages may be reduced or eliminated if the defendant can prove that the plaintiff failed to comply with the post-negligence instructions of the health care provider. In Ostrowski v. Azzara, the Court explained that the patient s pre-treatment health habits may never be considered as evidence of comparative fault. However, once treatment has been rendered [t]he law can justly expect the patient to cooperate with the health care provider in their mutual interests. Hence, we approve in this context of post-treatment conduct submission to the jury of the question whether the just mitigation or apportionment of damages may be expressed in terms of the patient s fault. 470 The distinction between the two concepts is that the the patient s fault will not be a bar to recovery except to the extent that her fault caused the damages. 471 Finally, and significantly, the Court imposed the burden of proving what damages were avoidable on the health care provider A defendant may meet his burden of proof on allocation through the use of the plaintiff s expert. A defendant is only responsible for the amount of ultimate harm proximately caused by the deviation. If that harm can be apportioned, it is up to the defendant to prove to a reasonable degree of medical probability that apportionment or allocation. This burden can be met through the defense expert or through the plaintiff s own expert who concedes that some certain percentage of injury would have happened even in the absence of negligence Ostrowski v. Azzara, 111 N.J. 429, (1988) Ostrowski v. Azzara, 111 N.J. 429, 446 (1988) Ostrowski v. Azzara, 111 N.J. 429, (1988). New Jersey Medical Malpractice law NJ MedMal_Ch04_2016.indd 373

5 9. Be aware that having an expert testify that all the harm would have happened irrespective of any negligence may not be sufficient to meet the defendant s burden. Some cases have suggested that defense expert testimony that the alleged deviation caused no harm, or, conversely that 100% of the harm would have happened irrespective of the alleged deviation, may not be sufficient. It is recommended that the defense expert provide some numerical percentage to meet this burden of proof. 374 New Jersey Medical Malpractice law 2017 NJ MedMal_Ch04_2016.indd 374

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION JAMES FLOOD, Individually and as Administrator of the ESTATE OF KEISHA FLOOD, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO.

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-10-2008 Hinman v. Russo Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3814 Follow this and additional

More information

Argued February 13, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Hoffman, Gilson, and Mayer.

Argued February 13, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Hoffman, Gilson, and Mayer. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

WHEN DOES A LOST-OPPORTUNITY CLAIM EXIST? While the second sentence of MCL a(2) provides a causation standard

WHEN DOES A LOST-OPPORTUNITY CLAIM EXIST? While the second sentence of MCL a(2) provides a causation standard WHEN DOES A LOST-OPPORTUNITY CLAIM EXIST? While the second sentence of MCL 600.2912a(2) provides a causation standard for medical malpractice claims alleging loss of opportunity to survive or achieve a

More information

Second, you must not be influenced by sympathy, passion or prejudice in favor of any party or against any of the parties.

Second, you must not be influenced by sympathy, passion or prejudice in favor of any party or against any of the parties. CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, we now come to that part of the case where I must give you the instructions on the law. If you cannot hear me, please raise your hand. It is important that you

More information

Appeal fi"om a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mott, J.), entered July 7, 2015 in Ulster

Appeal fiom a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mott, J.), entered July 7, 2015 in Ulster 11/30/2018 O'Connor VKingston Hosp. (2018 NY Slip Op 08207) O'Connor v Kingston Hosp. 2018 NY Slip Op 08207 Decided on November 29, 2018 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State

More information

Chapter 7 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Chapter 7 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 0001 XPP 7.3C.1 Patch #3 SPEC: SC_01444: nonllp: 1447: XPP-PROD Mon Dec 4 12:48:31 2006 [ST: 1] [ED: 10000] [REL: 2007] (Beg Group) Chapter 7 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SYNOPSIS PART I: STRATEGY 7.01 Scope 7.02

More information

[to use his best judgment in the treatment and care of his patient] 3

[to use his best judgment in the treatment and care of his patient] 3 Page 1 of 8 809.00A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE ONLY. (Use for claims arising on or after 1 October 2011. For claims arising before 1 October 2011, use N.C.P.I. Civil 809.00.) The

More information

by the negligence of the defendant in treating the plaintiff s emergency medical condition 2?"

by the negligence of the defendant in treating the plaintiff s emergency medical condition 2? Page 1 of 10 809.22 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE EMERGENCY MEDICAL CONDITION-- DIRECT (Use for claims arising on or after 1 October 2011. For claims arising before 1 October 2011, use N.C.P.I. Civil 809.00.) NOTE

More information

Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al Doc. 553

Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al Doc. 553 Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al Doc. 553 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------X ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,

More information

Revised 5/8/06. SIMPLE ASSAULT (Bodily Injury)(Lesser Included Offense) (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1))

Revised 5/8/06. SIMPLE ASSAULT (Bodily Injury)(Lesser Included Offense) (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1)) Revised 5/8/06 SIMPLE ASSAULT (Bodily Injury)(Lesser Included Offense) () The law requires that the Court instruct the jury with respect to possible (lesser) included offenses, even if they are not contained

More information

MURDER, PASSION/PROVOCATION AND AGGRAVATED/RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER 1 N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1) and (2); 2C:11-4a, b(1) and b(2)

MURDER, PASSION/PROVOCATION AND AGGRAVATED/RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER 1 N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1) and (2); 2C:11-4a, b(1) and b(2) Revised 6/8/15 MURDER, PASSION/PROVOCATION AND 1 Defendant is charged by indictment with the murder of (insert victim's name). Count of the indictment reads as follows: (Read pertinent count of indictment)

More information

The Dillon Proportionate Damage Rule Should Apply to Holton Lost Chance/ Increased Risk of Harm Cases

The Dillon Proportionate Damage Rule Should Apply to Holton Lost Chance/ Increased Risk of Harm Cases The Dillon Proportionate Damage Rule Should Apply to Holton Lost Chance/ Increased Risk of Harm Cases By: Hugh C. Griffin* Lord, Bissell & Brook LLP Chicago In Holton v. Memorial Hospital, 176 Ill. 2d

More information

Wright, Berger, Beachley,

Wright, Berger, Beachley, Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAL15-18272 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1471 September Term, 2017 KEISHA TOUSSAINT v. DOCTORS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL Wright,

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION OZLEM KOSEOGLU, as Administratrix of the Estate of MATT S. KOSEOGLU, deceased, as Administratrix ad Prosequendum for the heirs-at-law

More information

EVIDENCE ISSUES IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES

EVIDENCE ISSUES IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES EVIDENCE ISSUES IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES Catherine Eagles, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge (August 2009) (slightly revised by the School of Government to include changes made by Session Law 2011-400)

More information

5.40B MANUFACTURING DEFECT (Approved 10/1998; Revised 8/2011) Let me give you some applicable concepts which deal with the claim of

5.40B MANUFACTURING DEFECT (Approved 10/1998; Revised 8/2011) Let me give you some applicable concepts which deal with the claim of CHARGE 5.40B Page 1 of 8 5.40B MANUFACTURING DEFECT (Approved 10/1998; Revised 8/2011) Let me give you some applicable concepts which deal with the claim of manufacturing defect, and then I will explain

More information

PAGE 1 OF 8 N.C.P.I. Civil MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE ONLY. GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME JUNE

PAGE 1 OF 8 N.C.P.I. Civil MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE ONLY. GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME JUNE PAGE 1 OF 8 809.00 (Use for claims arising before 1 October 2011. For claims arising on or after 1 October 2011, use A.) The (state number) issue reads: "Was the plaintiff [injured] [damaged] 1 defendant?"

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ELIZABETH KRUSHENA, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 12, 2013 v No. 306366 Oakland Circuit Court ALI MESLEMANI, M.D. and A & G LC No. 2008-094674-NH AESTHETICS,

More information

Loss of a Chance. What is it and what does it mean in medical malpractice cases?

Loss of a Chance. What is it and what does it mean in medical malpractice cases? Loss of a Chance What is it and what does it mean in medical malpractice cases? Walter C. Morrison IV Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer, LLC I. Introduction Kramer walks in to your office

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-49 ADAM W. MASON, Petitioner, vs. HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE INC. and ROCHE LABORATORIES INC., Respondents.

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-49 ADAM W. MASON, Petitioner, vs. HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE INC. and ROCHE LABORATORIES INC., Respondents. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-49 ADAM W. MASON, Petitioner, vs. HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE INC. and ROCHE LABORATORIES INC., Respondents. ON REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, CASE

More information

7.32 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: INTERROGATORIES (Approved before 1985) NOTE TO JUDGE

7.32 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: INTERROGATORIES (Approved before 1985) NOTE TO JUDGE CHARGE 7.32 Page 1 of 9 7.32 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: INTERROGATORIES (Approved before 1985) NOTE TO JUDGE The interrogatories selected by the Committee for submission to the jury on the issue of comparative

More information

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 PATRICIA CHANCE, ET AL. BON SECOURS HOSPITAL, ET AL.

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 PATRICIA CHANCE, ET AL. BON SECOURS HOSPITAL, ET AL. UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2259 September Term, 2014 PATRICIA CHANCE, ET AL. v. BON SECOURS HOSPITAL, ET AL. Meredith, Friedman Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially

More information

Pesa v. Mitchell, et al., No. A (App. Div.)

Pesa v. Mitchell, et al., No. A (App. Div.) Pesa v. Mitchell, et al., No. A-1986-04 (App. Div.) SUMMARY: On June 20, 2006, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the Court's Order for summary judgment in favor of the firm's clients in an attorney

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. AIDA BASCOPE, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, VANESSA KOVAC, and Defendant-Respondent,

More information

Preparing the Physician for Deposition and Trial

Preparing the Physician for Deposition and Trial Preparing the Physician for Deposition and Trial Objectives Upon completion of this seminar, attendees should be able to: 1. List ways in which the physician can act as their own advocate and take an active

More information

Lost Chance of Survival in Illinois: The Need for Guidance from the Illinois Supreme Court

Lost Chance of Survival in Illinois: The Need for Guidance from the Illinois Supreme Court Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 23 Issue 1 Fall 1991 Article 7 1991 Lost Chance of Survival in Illinois: The Need for Guidance from the Illinois Supreme Court Shelly E. Smith Follow this and

More information

Tara A. Newman v. Wonderful Miracle Hospital, Dr. Sharpest Blade, Ima Smartone, RN and Sharron D. Blame, RN EXHIBITS

Tara A. Newman v. Wonderful Miracle Hospital, Dr. Sharpest Blade, Ima Smartone, RN and Sharron D. Blame, RN EXHIBITS Tara A. Newman v. Wonderful Miracle Hospital, Dr. Sharpest Blade, Ima Smartone, RN and Sharron D. Blame, RN EXHIBITS Exhibit One Exhibit Two Exhibit Three Exhibit Four Exhibit Five Exhibit Six Exhibit

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 YVONNE HORSEY, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : THE CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL, : WALEED S. SHALABY, M.D., AND : JENNIFER

More information

HEALTHCARE PROVIDER LIABILITY IN WEST VIRGINIA UPDATE ON THE LAW

HEALTHCARE PROVIDER LIABILITY IN WEST VIRGINIA UPDATE ON THE LAW HEALTHCARE PROVIDER LIABILITY IN WEST VIRGINIA UPDATE ON THE LAW 2015-2016 Medical Malpractice Claims in West Virginia The Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) West Virginia Code Section 55-7B-1 et

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 KAINE A. MCFARLAND, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, ROXANNE M. MCFARLAND AND LONNIE J. MCFARLAND IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

More information

If this opinion indicates that it is FOR PUBLICATION, it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

If this opinion indicates that it is FOR PUBLICATION, it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. If this opinion indicates that it is FOR PUBLICATION, it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S ESTATE

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,360 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JESSECA PATTERSON, Appellant, KAYCE CLOUD, Appellee.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,360 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JESSECA PATTERSON, Appellant, KAYCE CLOUD, Appellee. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,360 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JESSECA PATTERSON, Appellant, v. KAYCE CLOUD, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Johnson District

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RAYMOND O NEAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 28, 2010 v No. 277317 Wayne Circuit Court ST. JOHN HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER LC No. 05-515351-NH and RALPH DILISIO,

More information

v No Wayne Circuit Court HARPER-HUTZEL HOSPITAL also known as

v No Wayne Circuit Court HARPER-HUTZEL HOSPITAL also known as S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S JULIETTE BONANNO, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 28, 2018 v No. 334541 Wayne Circuit Court HARPER-HUTZEL HOSPITAL also

More information

Submitted March 9, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Hoffman and O'Connor.

Submitted March 9, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Hoffman and O'Connor. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SHANTE HOOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 5, 2016 v No. 322872 Oakland Circuit Court LORENZO FERGUSON, M.D., and ST. JOHN LC No. 2013-132522-NH HEALTH d/b/a

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. REINA LOPEZ, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, MICHELLE LARSEN, and Defendant-Appellant,

More information

SAMPLE BRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

SAMPLE BRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY LARRY ARMSTRONG, ) ) Appellee, ) Court of Appeals No. 2016-1111 ) ) -vs. ) Trial Court No. 2016-2222 ) JOHN ELLINGTON, ) ) Appellant.

More information

(Use for claims arising on or after 1 October For claims arising before 1 October 2011, use N.C.P.I. Civil )

(Use for claims arising on or after 1 October For claims arising before 1 October 2011, use N.C.P.I. Civil ) PAGE 1 OF 11 (Use for claims arising on or after 1 October 2011. For claims arising before 1 October 2011, use N.C.P.I. Civil 809.03.) NOTE WELL: Res Ipsa Loquitur has been approved as an option for liability

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 BERNADETTE AND TRAVIS SNYDER Appellants IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MOUNT NITTANY MEDICAL CENTER, DR. SARA BARWISE, MD, DR. MICHAEL

More information

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: November 29, 2018 526729 FRANCIS A. PREDILETTO et al., Appellants, v IFTIKHAR ALI SYED, Respondent, et

More information

Illinois Medical Malpractice: Redefining the Sole Proximate Cause Defense

Illinois Medical Malpractice: Redefining the Sole Proximate Cause Defense DePaul Journal of Health Care Law Volume 13 Issue 3 Summer 2011 Article 6 Illinois Medical Malpractice: Redefining the Sole Proximate Cause Defense Kristina M. Lau Follow this and additional works at:

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARILYN CHIRILUT and NICOLAE CHIRILUT, UNPUBLISHED November 23, 2010 Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross- Appellees, v No. 293750 Oakland Circuit Court WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,073 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DENNIS LESSARD, Appellant,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,073 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DENNIS LESSARD, Appellant, NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,073 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS DENNIS LESSARD, Appellant, v. WILLIAM O. REED, JR., M.D., Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Johnson

More information

v No Saginaw Circuit Court GERALD SCHELL, M.D., and SAGINAW LC No NH VALLEY NEUROSURGERY, PLLC,

v No Saginaw Circuit Court GERALD SCHELL, M.D., and SAGINAW LC No NH VALLEY NEUROSURGERY, PLLC, S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S STACEY WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED August 3, 2017 v No. 329640 Saginaw Circuit Court GERALD SCHELL, M.D., and SAGINAW LC No. 11-013778-NH

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D03-65

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D03-65 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005 JANICE L. VUCINICH, M.D., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D03-65 ELEANOR ROSS, ET AL., Appellee. / Opinion filed February

More information

Argued telephonically January 17, 2017 Decided May 12, Before Judges Lihotz, Hoffman and O'Connor.

Argued telephonically January 17, 2017 Decided May 12, Before Judges Lihotz, Hoffman and O'Connor. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet this opinion is binding

More information

Case 2:04-cv SHM-dkv Document 118 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 8 PageID 239

Case 2:04-cv SHM-dkv Document 118 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 8 PageID 239 Case 2:04-cv-02806-SHM-dkv Document 118 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 8 PageID 239 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION SYMANTHIA COOPER, ) ) Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI Appellees Decided: June 18, 2004 * * * * *

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI Appellees Decided: June 18, 2004 * * * * * [Cite as Lewis v. Toledo Hosp., 2004-Ohio-3154.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY Barbara Lewis, et al. Appellant Court of Appeals No. L-03-1171 Trial Court No. CI-2001-1382

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS IRENE INGLIS, Personal Representative of the Estate of JAMES INGLIS, Deceased, UNPUBLISHED August 26, 2004 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 247066 Oakland Circuit Court PROVIDENCE

More information

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER FOR NEGLIGENCE IN HIRING, SUPERVISION OR RETENTION 1 OF AN EMPLOYEE.

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER FOR NEGLIGENCE IN HIRING, SUPERVISION OR RETENTION 1 OF AN EMPLOYEE. Page 1 of 7 SUPERVISION OR RETENTION 1 OF AN EMPLOYEE. The (state issue number) reads: Was the plaintiff [injured] [damaged] by the negligence 2 of the defendant in [hiring] [supervising] [retaining] (state

More information

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No. CV The Honorable Michael D.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No. CV The Honorable Michael D. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE BURT WEBB and MICHELE WEBB, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross- Appellants, v. OMNI BLOCK, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-

More information

SPRING 2009 May 7, 2009 FINAL EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER MULTIPLE CHOICE

SPRING 2009 May 7, 2009 FINAL EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER MULTIPLE CHOICE TORTS II PROFESSOR DEWOLF SPRIN 2009 May 7, 2009 FINAL EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. (A) is incorrect, because of the doctrine of transferred intent. (B) is incorrect, because Susan could still

More information

Function of the Jury Burden of Proof and Greater Weight of the Evidence Credibility of Witness Weight of the Evidence

Function of the Jury Burden of Proof and Greater Weight of the Evidence Credibility of Witness Weight of the Evidence 101.05 Function of the Jury Members of the jury, all the evidence has been presented. It is now your duty to decide the facts from the evidence. You must then apply to those facts the law which I am about

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JANET TIPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION April 19, 2005 9:05 a.m. v No. 252117 Oakland Circuit Court WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL and LC No. 2003-046552-CP ANDREW

More information

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CA09-1124 Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 DR. MARC ROGERS V. ALAN SARGENT APPELLANT APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, [NO. CV2008-236-III]

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOYCE KAPP, as Next Friend of ELIZABETH JOHNSON, UNPUBLISHED March 6, 2001 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 216020 Kent Circuit Court MARK A. EVENHOUSE, M.D. and LAURELS LC

More information

Case VFP Doc Filed 12/22/16 Entered 12/22/16 10:07:58 Desc Brief Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case VFP Doc Filed 12/22/16 Entered 12/22/16 10:07:58 Desc Brief Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 15-02397-VFP Doc 171-1 Filed 12/22/16 Entered 12/22/16 100758 Desc Brief Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY x Case No. 15-10019 (VFP) IN THE MATTER OF Hon. Vincent

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KURT A. LOCKWOOD, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JERRI LOCKWOOD, FOR PUBLICATION June 7, 2011 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 295931 Saginaw Circuit

More information

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE ONLY ( RES IPSA LOQUITUR )

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE ONLY ( RES IPSA LOQUITUR ) PAGE 1 OF 10 (Use for claims arising on or after 1 October 2011. For claims arising before 1 October 2011, use N.C.P.I. Civil 809.03.) NOTE WELL: Res Ipsa Loquitur has been approved as an option for liability

More information

Neil B. KIRSCHEN, M.D., Winthrop University Hospital, Linda W. Roberts,

Neil B. KIRSCHEN, M.D., Winthrop University Hospital, Linda W. Roberts, Arlene DANIELE, Plaintiffs, v. Neil B. KIRSCHEN, M.D 2015 WL 12711957... 2015 WL 12711957 (N.Y.Sup.) (Verdict, Agreement and Settlement) Supreme Court of New York. Nassau County Arlene DANIELE, Plaintiffs,

More information

Customer will bring an action against Businessman under a negligence theory.

Customer will bring an action against Businessman under a negligence theory. Customer (C) v. Businessman (B) Customer will bring an action against Businessman under a negligence theory. Negligence requires a Breach of a Duty that Causes Damages. A. Duty B had a duty to drive as

More information

ETHICAL DUTY OF ATTORNEY TO DISCLOSE ERRORS TO CLIENT

ETHICAL DUTY OF ATTORNEY TO DISCLOSE ERRORS TO CLIENT Formal Opinions Opinion 113 ETHICAL DUTY OF ATTORNEY TO 113 DISCLOSE ERRORS TO CLIENT Adopted November 19, 2005. Modified July 18, 2015 solely to reflect January 1, 2008 changes in the Rules of Professional

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 SHEILA K. MAYES AND STACEY MAYES Appellants IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TIMOTHY SHOPE, M.D., AND THE MILTON HERSHEY MED. CENTER,

More information

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Eric A. Frey Frey Law Firm Terre Haute, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE John D. Nell Jere A. Rosebrock Wooden McLaughlin, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

More information

NO. 07-CI JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION TEN (10) JUDGE IRV MAZE TONIA FREEMAN PLAINTIFF. BECKER LAW OFFICE, PLC, et al.

NO. 07-CI JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION TEN (10) JUDGE IRV MAZE TONIA FREEMAN PLAINTIFF. BECKER LAW OFFICE, PLC, et al. NO. 07-CI-10400 JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION TEN (10) JUDGE IRV MAZE TONIA FREEMAN PLAINTIFF v. BECKER LAW OFFICE, PLC, et al. DEFENDANTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JURY INSTRUCTIONS * * * * * *

More information

SHAUNA R. REES, a married woman, Plaintiff/Appellant,

SHAUNA R. REES, a married woman, Plaintiff/Appellant, NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

9 of their attorneys you have learned the conclusion which 10 each party believes should be drawn from the evidence

9 of their attorneys you have learned the conclusion which 10 each party believes should be drawn from the evidence 6 THE COURT: Thank you very much, Mr. Kelly. 7 Members of the jury, you have now heard all the 8 evidence Introduced by the parties and through the arguments 9 of their attorneys you have learned the conclusion

More information

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - SIGNIFICANT BODILY INJURY N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(7) 1

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - SIGNIFICANT BODILY INJURY N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(7) 1 1 Revised 6/12/17 In Count of the Indictment, the defendant(s) is (are) charged with the crime of aggravated assault in that (he/she/they) allegedly on in the (Date) (Municipality) (READ PERTINENT LANGUAGE

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 98-CV-3. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (Hon. Peter H. Wolf, Trial Judge)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 98-CV-3. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (Hon. Peter H. Wolf, Trial Judge) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HELENE IRENE SMILEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 26, 2001 9:05 a.m. v No. 217466 Oakland Circuit Court HELEN H. CORRIGAN, LC No. 96-522690-NI and Defendant-Appellant,

More information

1. Liability of Owner of Commercial Property for Defects, Snow and Ice Accumulation and Other Dangerous Conditions in Abutting Sidewalks.

1. Liability of Owner of Commercial Property for Defects, Snow and Ice Accumulation and Other Dangerous Conditions in Abutting Sidewalks. E514 1. Liability of Owner of Commercial Property for Defects, Snow and Ice Accumulation and Other Dangerous Conditions in Abutting Sidewalks. The law imposes upon the owner of commercial or business property

More information

Plaintiff 's Failure to Use Available Seatbelt May Be Considered as Evidence of Contributory Negligence When Nonuse Allegedly Causes the Accident

Plaintiff 's Failure to Use Available Seatbelt May Be Considered as Evidence of Contributory Negligence When Nonuse Allegedly Causes the Accident St. John's Law Review Volume 57 Issue 2 Volume 57, Winter 1983, Number 2 Article 12 June 2012 Plaintiff 's Failure to Use Available Seatbelt May Be Considered as Evidence of Contributory Negligence When

More information

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: January 4, 2018 524521 MARTIN J. ROTHSCHILD, Appellant, v PETER A. BRASELMANN, Individually and as Agent

More information

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res

More information

The affidavit of merit (AOM) statute, enacted in

The affidavit of merit (AOM) statute, enacted in Does the Patients First Act Really Put Patients First? Recent Case Developments Concerning Medical Affidavits of Merit by Peter L. MacIsaac The affidavit of merit (AOM) statute, enacted in 1995, requires

More information

Defending Audit-Malpractice Cases: The Audit-Interference Rule By James H. Bicks and Robert S. Hoff March 26, 2012

Defending Audit-Malpractice Cases: The Audit-Interference Rule By James H. Bicks and Robert S. Hoff March 26, 2012 ARTICLES Defending Audit-Malpractice Cases: The Audit-Interference Rule By James H. Bicks and Robert S. Hoff March 26, 2012 Getting a routine financial-statement audit is not the equivalent of buying an

More information

Before Judges Espinosa and Suter. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L

Before Judges Espinosa and Suter. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Douglas E. Sakaguchi Jerome W. McKeever Pfeifer Morgan & Stesiak South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE SAINT JOSEPH REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER Robert J. Palmer May Oberfell Lorber

More information

ILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER I CIVIL PROCEDURE. On June 11, 2003, Section was amended. The change specifically prohibits

ILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER I CIVIL PROCEDURE. On June 11, 2003, Section was amended. The change specifically prohibits If you have questions or would like further information regarding Joint and Several Liability, please contact: David Flynn 312-540-7662 dflynn@querrey.com Result Oriented. Success Driven. www.querrey.com

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO 5 CV16867554 101172599 101172599 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO MARIE ALBAN E v. Plamt,ff' WI.VJ.. CLERK OF CUUisk,; CUYAHOGA COUhU ST. VINCENT CHARITY MEDICAL CENTER, et al. CASE NO.

More information

Trial Motions. Motions in Limine. Civil Perspective

Trial Motions. Motions in Limine. Civil Perspective Trial Motions and Motions in Limine from the Civil Perspective New York State Bar Association Young Lawyers Section Trial Academy 2016 Cornell Law School - Ithaca, New York Presented by: Michael P. O Brien

More information

In The. Court of Appeals. Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO CV. CHRISTUS ST. ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, Appellant

In The. Court of Appeals. Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO CV. CHRISTUS ST. ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, Appellant In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-12-00490-CV CHRISTUS ST. ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, Appellant V. DOROTHY GUILLORY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Jefferson

More information

Brief Survey of Plaintiff s Recoverable Past Medical Expenses in Multiple Jurisdictions

Brief Survey of Plaintiff s Recoverable Past Medical Expenses in Multiple Jurisdictions The Various Approaches to Recovery Across the nation, states continue to have different approaches when it comes to the admissibility and effect of billed versus paid medical expenses. California and Texas

More information

CASE NO. 1D Caryn L. Bellus and Bretton C. Albrecht of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Caryn L. Bellus and Bretton C. Albrecht of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Miami, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA BRITTANY HANEY, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D15-3905

More information

SUMMER 2002 July 15, 2002 MIDTERM EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER

SUMMER 2002 July 15, 2002 MIDTERM EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER TORTS I PROFESSOR DEWOLF SUMMER 2002 July 15, 2002 MIDTERM EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER QUESTION 1 The facts for this question were based upon Aldana v. School City of East Chicago, 769 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind.App. 2002),

More information

Medical Defense Committee

Medical Defense Committee March, 2003 No. 5 Medical Defense Committee In This Issue Doug Pomatto, is the managing partner of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen's Rockford, Illinois, office. He represents insured and self-insured clients,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOHN ZAINEA and MARIE ZAINEA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED December 1, 2005 and BLUE CARE NETWORK, Intervening-Plaintiff, v No. 256262 Wayne Circuit Court ANDREW

More information

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 September 2006

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 September 2006 An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas OPINION

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas OPINION AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 2, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-11-01039-CV ANDREA SHERMAN, Appellant V. HEALTHSOUTH SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, INC. D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH

More information

Witnesses--Physician Defendant Called under Adverse-Witness Statute--Expert Testimony [Oleksmw v. Weidener, 2 Ohio St. 2d 147, 207 N.E.

Witnesses--Physician Defendant Called under Adverse-Witness Statute--Expert Testimony [Oleksmw v. Weidener, 2 Ohio St. 2d 147, 207 N.E. Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 17 Issue 2 1965 Witnesses--Physician Defendant Called under Adverse-Witness Statute--Expert Testimony [Oleksmw v. Weidener, 2 Ohio St. 2d 147, 207 N.E.2d 375 (1965)]

More information

MODEL MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE CHARGE AND VERDICT SHEET. MOTOR VEHICLE VOLUME REPLACEMENT JUNE

MODEL MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE CHARGE AND VERDICT SHEET. MOTOR VEHICLE VOLUME REPLACEMENT JUNE Page 1 of 25 100.00 MODEL MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE CHARGE AND VERDICT SHEET. NOTE WELL: This is a sample only. Your case must be tailored to fit your facts and the law. Do not blindly follow this pattern.

More information

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice. April 18, 1997

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice. April 18, 1997 Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice SHIRLEY DICKERSON v. Record No. 961531 OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR. NASROLLAH FATEHI,

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 11, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2122 Lower Tribunal No. 00-17596 University of

More information

Argued September 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Reisner and Hoffman.

Argued September 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Reisner and Hoffman. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

State Laws Chart I: Liability Reforms

State Laws Chart I: Liability Reforms State Laws Chart I: Liability Reforms State Damage Caps Joint Liability Reform Collateral Source Reform Alabama ne. Each defendant is jointly and Yes Yes for awards of future damages in excess of $150,000.

More information

PREPARING, TAKING AND APPLYING MEDICAL TESTIMONY TO SUPPORT A PERSONAL INJURY CASE

PREPARING, TAKING AND APPLYING MEDICAL TESTIMONY TO SUPPORT A PERSONAL INJURY CASE PREPARING, TAKING AND APPLYING MEDICAL TESTIMONY TO SUPPORT A PERSONAL INJURY CASE Taylor T. Perry, Jr. 1. THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN ANY AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF S PERSPECTIVE IS

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GARY E. GIUSTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 2, 2003 BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Intervening Plaintiff, v No. 241714 Macomb Circuit Court MT. CLEMENS

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ADAM KANE, JENNIFER KANE AND KANE FINISHING, LLC, D/B/A KANE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR FINISHING v. Appellants ATLANTIC STATES INSURANCE COMPANY,

More information