The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Advanced Level

August 29th, 2024|Categories: CLE Webinar|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

The medical monitoring tort remedy – allowing for medical monitoring without physical injury – is recognized in 14 states and not allowed in 23. The law is divided in two states while the rest have not specifically addressed the issue. States that allow medical monitoring to do so when a group of claimants is at increased risk of disease or injury due to exposure to a known hazardous substance or a dangerous product as the result of a defendant’s conduct. Under this tort remedy, claimants are tested periodically, for an agreed or decided period, usually between 10 and 40 years. In this CLE webinar, Gentle Turner & Benson LLC attorneys Edgar (“Ed”) C. Gentle III and Katherine (“Kip”) A. Benson discuss the evolution of the medical monitoring tort, related cases, tests to determine whether the tort should be applied, types of monitoring, and the arguments for an against medical monitoring.

Read More

The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy

June 4th, 2024|Categories: CLE Webinar|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

The medical monitoring tort remedy – allowing for medical monitoring without physical injury – is recognized in 14 states and not allowed in 23. The law is divided in two states while the rest have not specifically addressed the issue. States that allow medical monitoring to do so when a group of claimants is at increased risk of disease or injury due to exposure to a known hazardous substance or a dangerous product as the result of a defendant’s conduct. Under this tort remedy, claimants are tested periodically, for an agreed or decided period, usually between 10 and 40 years. In this CLE webinar, Gentle Turner & Benson LLC attorneys Edgar (“Ed”) C. Gentle III and Katherine (“Kip”) A. Benson discuss the evolution of the medical monitoring tort, related cases, tests to determine whether the tort should be applied, types of monitoring, and the arguments for an against medical monitoring.

Read More

Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute

October 26th, 2021|Categories: Cyber Risk Litigation, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation|Tags: , , , , , , |

Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute Abstract This case discussed in this article is about two methods of editing DNA: one that has infinitely more lucrative applications because it can edit human DNA (plus all animals and plants), another that works in cell-free environments. Whether inventions are separate or part of the same innovation is an important factor in patent interference disputes; if there are two patentably distinct inventions there cannot be interference. One party in this case lost its argument that there was only one invention at issue, but returned with a second interference claim, arguing that it was the first inventor to constructively reduce to practice the animal and plant DNA editor. In this article, the author examines the nuances and intricacies of the patent process in the world of biology, and how patent lawyers must possess a level of knowledge in disciplines related to the inventions they seek to protect. This is necessary, for example, in understanding whether an invention is a significant improvement over prior innovations. The author also shares the importance of confidentiality especially when potentially groundbreaking (and lucrative) inventions are in development. Author Adrienne B. Naumann (adriennebnaumann@uchicago.edu) practices intellectual property law at the Law Office of Adrienne B. Naumann in [...]

Read More

Mega Verdict Threat: Tackling Damages Early Can Mitigate Outsized Jury Awards

October 26th, 2021|Categories: HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Tort Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation|Tags: , , , , |

Mega Verdict Threat: Tackling Damages Early Can Mitigate Outsized Jury Awards Abstract Why have medical malpractice verdicts in recent years reached such astronomical new heights? In this article the author addresses several of the factors that drive juries to return such punishing awards, discussing the unexpected impact of tort reform, the role of life-care planners and economists in determining damages, the ramifications of litigation financing, plaintiff attorneys’ utilization of the so-called reptile theory, and the influence of how the media reports on these verdicts. The author offers practical methods for defense attorneys involved in this litigation and insights that will benefit attorneys in any type of tort matter. Author Sandra M. Cianflone (scianflone@hallboothsmith.com) is an attorney at law firm Hall Booth Smith, P.C., whose practice primarily focuses on medical malpractice. About The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Read More

Surfside Condo Collapse: A 360-Degree Insurance Coverage Analysis

October 26th, 2021|Categories: HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Tort Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Surfside Condo Collapse: A 360-Degree Insurance Coverage Analysis Abstract The horrific and fatal collapse of Champlain Towers South in the summer of 2021 not only shook the ground in Surfside, Florida, but it brought into question the integrity of structures everywhere. If professionals in the construction, real estate, and building management industries were relaxed about signs of structural decay before, they are not anymore. The insurance industry also has reasons to worry, as potentially responsible players turn to their policies to defend or indemnify them for claims for accidents causing losses including from property damage, personal injury, or death. In this article the authors evaluate the factors that are addressed when coverage determinations are made, as well as the various types of policies that come into play. Authors Allen R. Wolff (awolff@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in Anderson Kill’s New York office, where he concentrates on the intersection of construction litigation and insurance recovery. Allen is co-chair of the firm’s Construction Industry Practice group and Corporate and Commercial Litigation Practice group. He advises and represents policyholders—building owners, developers, contractors, retailers, municipalities, financial institutions, hospitality businesses, condominium associations, and tenants’ associations—in a range of insurance coverage disputes. Allen’s colleagues, Ethan W. Middlebrooks (emiddlebrooks@andersonkill.com) and Jason Kosek (jkosek@andersonkill.com), are also attorneys in Anderson Kill’s New York office. They also concentrate on insurance [...]

Read More

To Pay or Not to Pay: Does Your Insurance Policy Cover Ransomware Losses? | By Pamela Hans | Anderson Kill

October 26th, 2021|Categories: Cyber Risk, Cyber Risk Litigation, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

To Pay or Not to Pay: Does Your Insurance Policy Cover Ransomware Losses? Abstract Ransomware attacks are a rapidly growing threat against organizations. Paying ransom demands is a risky proposition and may even lead to sanctions against the targeted company. Either way, the damage to a company’s operation and integrity can be cripplingly severe. Should a company suffer losses from cyber extortion, its insurance company will be one of the resources it turns to for relief. But with cyber coverage increasingly out of reach for some, policyholders may find coverage in more traditional coverages. In this article, the author evaluates the potential for coverage under several policy types, and underscores the importance of understanding policy language, the relevant law, and the potential regulatory ramifications of meeting ransom demands. Author Pamela D. Hans (phans@andersonkill.com) is the managing shareholder of Anderson Kill’s Philadelphia office. Her practice concentrates on insurance coverage exclusively on behalf of policyholders. Pam is also a member of the firm’s COVID Task Group and Cyber Recovery Group. About The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Read More
Go to Top