Mary is a 42-year old mother of three. In 1994 she presented to her primary care physician after having detected a lump on self-exam of her left breast. Mary’s primary care physician suspected fibrocystic disease, but as a precautionary measure, ordered a mammogram. The mammogram was interpreted as normal and no further follow-up was performed. One year later Mary returned to her primary care physician and reported that the lump had noticeably enlarged and she was experiencing tenderness in the area of the lump. At this time, Mary was referred to a surgeon who biopsied the lump and a diagnosis of cancer was made. Review of the earlier mammogram revealed that it had been misinterpreted and the diagnosis of Mary’s cancer was delayed for over one year. When removed, the malignant tumor measured 1.9 cm. and one lymph node was involved. Following radiation and chemotherapy, Mary has remained cancer free for two years. Mary has been advised by her doctors that there is a 30% chance that her cancer will recur, whereas if promptly diagnosed one year earlier, prior to lymph node involvement, the chances of recurrence were minimal. She comes to you for help. Read more
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Mark Abramsonhttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgMark Abramson1998-10-28 02:13:122017-04-28 02:14:04Fear of Future Harm in Medical Malpractice Cases
All it takes for a plaintiff to win a medical malpractice case before a jury is “a single dissenting voice among [all] surgeons on the stand” because “the sympathies of the jury” always run in favor of the plaintiff. The “sympathy of a jury of citizens is not generally with the doctor, but rather on the side of the poor, ill advised, unfortunate victim of incurable injury.” Litigation is forcing doctors to abandon their calling. Read more
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Mark Abramsonhttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgMark Abramson1998-07-15 02:19:482023-12-04 18:18:17Medical Malpractice & The American Jury Confronting The Myths About Jury Incompetence Deep Pockets
In Corso v. Merrill1 , the New Hampshire Supreme Court adopted the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress for those outside the zone of danger. Rejecting earlier precedent, and the weight of authority elsewhere, the Court found that “freedom from mental distress is an interest that is today worthy of legal protection.”2 The language the Court used, however, has had the unintended affect of excluding medical malpractice victims from the right to recover. The Court has subsequently recognized that the New Hampshire Constitution does not permit medical malpractice plaintiffs to be treated differently than other personal injury plaintiffs.3Read more
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Mark Abramsonhttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgMark Abramson1998-04-15 18:58:392024-09-11 08:39:42Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress in Medical Negligence Cases
I. INTRODUCTION:
In the last issue of Trial Bar News we wrote about a troubling trend in this State toward abusive discovery tactics.1 In this article, we address one part of that trend: the baseless assertion of privileges. Privileges are being used as a matter of course to thwart legitimate discovery requests. Too often they are asserted without careful analysis, needlessly delaying discovery and adding significant expense to the process. We hope to discourage this abusive tactic by carefully delineating the scope of the most commonly asserted privileges. Read more
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Mark Abramsonhttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgMark Abramson1998-01-28 02:15:552017-04-28 02:18:13Discovery of Abuse Part II: Baseless Assertion of Privileges
In recent years, many health maintenance organizations (HMOs) have moved away from paying physicians a straight salary and have instead implemented a bonus/penalty incentive system which compensates physicians, at least in part, according to how well they keep costs down. “Although some of the bonuses and penalties target quality, most reward limiting care and boosting the HMO’s image and enrollment.”1 Since more than a quarter of a million New Hampshire residents receive their health care through HMOs2, the dangerous effects of such cost containment plans are of particular concern in this state. Read more
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Mark Abramsonhttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgMark Abramson1997-11-22 02:09:582017-04-28 02:11:03HMO Liability Building Corporate Profits At The Expense of Patient Care
I. Introduction:
Nearly every case is won or lost in discovery. Nevertheless, it is the subject of minimal judicial control leaving attorneys to operate on the honor system. When abuses occur, litigants often fail to alert the court because they feel that the damage has already been done. Moreover, as one court has said, “It is difficult to recapture in cold type the atmosphere of a discovery dispute; each individual incident may appear trivial in isolation but the totality of such incidents may add up to obstruction.”1
When discovery disputes have reached the courts, however, the judges have recognized the serious nature of the problem and have uniformly treated them very seriously. Judges in this state have shown the flexibility to remedy some seemingly irreversible advantages obtained unfairly, and, equally important, they have shown the ability to prevent additional abusive conduct by imposing strong sanctions for past transgressions. Read more
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Mark Abramsonhttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgMark Abramson1997-10-13 02:17:472017-04-28 02:18:48Discovery of Abuse in NH: What Happens When The Honor System Fails
Fear of Future Harm in Medical Malpractice Cases
/by Mark AbramsonMary is a 42-year old mother of three. In 1994 she presented to her primary care physician after having detected a lump on self-exam of her left breast. Mary’s primary care physician suspected fibrocystic disease, but as a precautionary measure, ordered a mammogram. The mammogram was interpreted as normal and no further follow-up was performed. One year later Mary returned to her primary care physician and reported that the lump had noticeably enlarged and she was experiencing tenderness in the area of the lump. At this time, Mary was referred to a surgeon who biopsied the lump and a diagnosis of cancer was made. Review of the earlier mammogram revealed that it had been misinterpreted and the diagnosis of Mary’s cancer was delayed for over one year. When removed, the malignant tumor measured 1.9 cm. and one lymph node was involved. Following radiation and chemotherapy, Mary has remained cancer free for two years. Mary has been advised by her doctors that there is a 30% chance that her cancer will recur, whereas if promptly diagnosed one year earlier, prior to lymph node involvement, the chances of recurrence were minimal. She comes to you for help. Read more
Medical Malpractice & The American Jury Confronting The Myths About Jury Incompetence Deep Pockets
/by Mark AbramsonAll it takes for a plaintiff to win a medical malpractice case before a jury is “a single dissenting voice among [all] surgeons on the stand” because “the sympathies of the jury” always run in favor of the plaintiff. The “sympathy of a jury of citizens is not generally with the doctor, but rather on the side of the poor, ill advised, unfortunate victim of incurable injury.” Litigation is forcing doctors to abandon their calling. Read more
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress in Medical Negligence Cases
/by Mark AbramsonI. Introduction:
In Corso v. Merrill1 , the New Hampshire Supreme Court adopted the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress for those outside the zone of danger. Rejecting earlier precedent, and the weight of authority elsewhere, the Court found that “freedom from mental distress is an interest that is today worthy of legal protection.”2 The language the Court used, however, has had the unintended affect of excluding medical malpractice victims from the right to recover. The Court has subsequently recognized that the New Hampshire Constitution does not permit medical malpractice plaintiffs to be treated differently than other personal injury plaintiffs.3 Read more
Discovery of Abuse Part II: Baseless Assertion of Privileges
/by Mark AbramsonI. INTRODUCTION:
In the last issue of Trial Bar News we wrote about a troubling trend in this State toward abusive discovery tactics.1 In this article, we address one part of that trend: the baseless assertion of privileges. Privileges are being used as a matter of course to thwart legitimate discovery requests. Too often they are asserted without careful analysis, needlessly delaying discovery and adding significant expense to the process. We hope to discourage this abusive tactic by carefully delineating the scope of the most commonly asserted privileges. Read more
HMO Liability Building Corporate Profits At The Expense of Patient Care
/by Mark AbramsonI. Introduction:
In recent years, many health maintenance organizations (HMOs) have moved away from paying physicians a straight salary and have instead implemented a bonus/penalty incentive system which compensates physicians, at least in part, according to how well they keep costs down. “Although some of the bonuses and penalties target quality, most reward limiting care and boosting the HMO’s image and enrollment.”1 Since more than a quarter of a million New Hampshire residents receive their health care through HMOs2, the dangerous effects of such cost containment plans are of particular concern in this state. Read more
Discovery of Abuse in NH: What Happens When The Honor System Fails
/by Mark AbramsonI. Introduction:
Nearly every case is won or lost in discovery. Nevertheless, it is the subject of minimal judicial control leaving attorneys to operate on the honor system. When abuses occur, litigants often fail to alert the court because they feel that the damage has already been done. Moreover, as one court has said, “It is difficult to recapture in cold type the atmosphere of a discovery dispute; each individual incident may appear trivial in isolation but the totality of such incidents may add up to obstruction.”1
When discovery disputes have reached the courts, however, the judges have recognized the serious nature of the problem and have uniformly treated them very seriously. Judges in this state have shown the flexibility to remedy some seemingly irreversible advantages obtained unfairly, and, equally important, they have shown the ability to prevent additional abusive conduct by imposing strong sanctions for past transgressions. Read more