Ethical Considerations in Medical Malpractice When Client Testimony and the Records Conflict
By
Mark A. Abramson and Kevin F. Dugan
I. Introduction
The attorney-client privilege is “the oldest of the privileges for confidential communication known to the common law.”[1] “Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.”[2]
Like all things, however, the attorney-client privilege is susceptible to abuse. While it can be used to foster trust and protect a client’s legitimate interests, it can also be invoked as a shield to deflect inquiries into virtually any area that the attorney wishes to keep hidden. It may be affirmatively asserted in order to obscure wrongdoing on the part of the client, or it may be passively relied upon by an attorney who allows a client to commit perjury without correction. Read more
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Kevin Duganhttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgKevin Dugan2012-06-28 03:16:562023-12-05 18:16:43Ethical Considerations in Medical Malpractice When Client Testimony and the Records Conflict
by Holly B. Haines with contributions by William D. Woodbury
I. INTRODUCTION
On June 27, 2012, over the veto of the Governor of New Hampshire and over the objections of the two largest medical malpractice insurers in New Hampshire, medical malpractice plaintiffs’ lawyers, the New Hampshire Association for Justice, and New Hampshire citizens harmed by medical malpractice, the New Hampshire legislature passed SB 406, the so-called “Early Offer” bill, into law, enacting RSA chapter 519-C. This new law was pushed through the legislature in less than five months, with only two public hearings, with consideration and hearing by only one committee (Judiciary) in each chamber of the General Court, and after being rejected by every other jurisdiction in the United States where it has been proposed, as well as by the United States Congress. Perhaps most notably, this law was not necessary in New Hampshire since insurers and physicians have always had the right to make an early offer to a plaintiff if a negligent medical error occurred. Read more
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Holly Haineshttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgHolly Haines2012-02-28 03:14:042017-04-28 03:14:25The Early Offer Alternative in Medical Malpractice Litigation: A Statutory Trap to Limit Liability
Unethical Demands in Settlement Agreements in Medical Malpractice Cases
By
Mark Abramson & Kevin Dugan
I. Introduction
Settlements are commonly used mutual agreements to end a dispute on terms deemed acceptable to both sides. Public policy strongly supports the settlement of disputes through means other than litigation. Moreover, particularly in its current financial state, the court system strongly encourages settlement of conflicts in lieu of full litigation. Read more
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Kevin Duganhttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgKevin Dugan2011-09-28 03:19:402017-04-28 03:19:51Unethical Demands in Settlement Agreements in Medical Malpractice Cases
Limitations on Defense Medical Examinations of Injured Plaintiffs in Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Claims
by
Kevin F. Dugan and Holly B. Haines
I. Introduction
Physical and mental examinations are accepted discovery tools in personal injury and medical malpractice cases when a plaintiff is claiming damages for physical or psychologic injuries caused by a defendant’s negligence.[1] In fact, standing Superior Court Pretrial Orders provide that in such cases “the defendant shall have the right to a medical examination of the plaintiff prior to, or during, trial.”[2] While the defendant may have a right and a legitimate purpose for performing a physical or mental examination of a plaintiff, the defendant does not have the right to dictate the terms of such examinations to the detriment of the plaintiff. Read more
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Holly Haineshttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgHolly Haines2011-08-28 03:17:552024-09-02 08:43:27Limitations on Defense Medical Examinations of Injured Plaintiffs in Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Claims
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Kevin Duganhttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgKevin Dugan2010-10-28 03:12:562024-09-18 17:22:51Mismanaged Methadone Treatment: A Prescription for Personal Injury
Broad Based Senate Bill for Tort Reform Deemed Inexpedient to Legislate Consistent with National Trends
By Kevin F. Dugan and Holly B. Haines
In the current economy, rising healthcare costs are a concern to everyone; consumers, employers, insurers and medical care providers. With a stated purpose of providing “increased access to more affordable healthcare and health insurance in our state” by “lessen[ing] indirect costs that drive up health care;” SB 468 was introduced to the General Court in January 2010 as an act relative to tort reform. The bill was referred to the Senate Commerce, Labor and Consumer Protection Committee, which held a hearing on March 16, 2010. After hearing, on March 18, 2010, the Committee reported that the bill was inexpedient to legislate. Read more
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Holly Haineshttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgHolly Haines2010-06-28 03:10:472017-04-28 03:11:03Broad Based Senate Bill for ‘Tort Reform’ Deemed Inexpedient to Legislate Consistent with National Trends
Ethical Considerations in Medical Malpractice When Client Testimony and the Records Conflict
/by Kevin DuganEthical Considerations in Medical Malpractice When Client Testimony and the Records Conflict
By
Mark A. Abramson and Kevin F. Dugan
I. Introduction
The attorney-client privilege is “the oldest of the privileges for confidential communication known to the common law.”[1] “Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.”[2]
Like all things, however, the attorney-client privilege is susceptible to abuse. While it can be used to foster trust and protect a client’s legitimate interests, it can also be invoked as a shield to deflect inquiries into virtually any area that the attorney wishes to keep hidden. It may be affirmatively asserted in order to obscure wrongdoing on the part of the client, or it may be passively relied upon by an attorney who allows a client to commit perjury without correction. Read more
The Early Offer Alternative in Medical Malpractice Litigation: A Statutory Trap to Limit Liability
/by Holly Hainesby Holly B. Haines with contributions by William D. Woodbury
I. INTRODUCTION
On June 27, 2012, over the veto of the Governor of New Hampshire and over the objections of the two largest medical malpractice insurers in New Hampshire, medical malpractice plaintiffs’ lawyers, the New Hampshire Association for Justice, and New Hampshire citizens harmed by medical malpractice, the New Hampshire legislature passed SB 406, the so-called “Early Offer” bill, into law, enacting RSA chapter 519-C. This new law was pushed through the legislature in less than five months, with only two public hearings, with consideration and hearing by only one committee (Judiciary) in each chamber of the General Court, and after being rejected by every other jurisdiction in the United States where it has been proposed, as well as by the United States Congress. Perhaps most notably, this law was not necessary in New Hampshire since insurers and physicians have always had the right to make an early offer to a plaintiff if a negligent medical error occurred. Read more
Unethical Demands in Settlement Agreements in Medical Malpractice Cases
/by Kevin DuganUnethical Demands in Settlement Agreements in Medical Malpractice Cases
By
Mark Abramson & Kevin Dugan
I. Introduction
Settlements are commonly used mutual agreements to end a dispute on terms deemed acceptable to both sides. Public policy strongly supports the settlement of disputes through means other than litigation. Moreover, particularly in its current financial state, the court system strongly encourages settlement of conflicts in lieu of full litigation. Read more
Limitations on Defense Medical Examinations of Injured Plaintiffs in Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Claims
/by Holly HainesLimitations on Defense Medical Examinations of Injured Plaintiffs in Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Claims
by
Kevin F. Dugan and Holly B. Haines
I. Introduction
Physical and mental examinations are accepted discovery tools in personal injury and medical malpractice cases when a plaintiff is claiming damages for physical or psychologic injuries caused by a defendant’s negligence.[1] In fact, standing Superior Court Pretrial Orders provide that in such cases “the defendant shall have the right to a medical examination of the plaintiff prior to, or during, trial.”[2] While the defendant may have a right and a legitimate purpose for performing a physical or mental examination of a plaintiff, the defendant does not have the right to dictate the terms of such examinations to the detriment of the plaintiff. Read more
Mismanaged Methadone Treatment: A Prescription for Personal Injury
/by Kevin DuganBroad Based Senate Bill for ‘Tort Reform’ Deemed Inexpedient to Legislate Consistent with National Trends
/by Holly HainesBroad Based Senate Bill for Tort Reform Deemed Inexpedient to Legislate Consistent with National Trends
By Kevin F. Dugan and Holly B. Haines
In the current economy, rising healthcare costs are a concern to everyone; consumers, employers, insurers and medical care providers. With a stated purpose of providing “increased access to more affordable healthcare and health insurance in our state” by “lessen[ing] indirect costs that drive up health care;” SB 468 was introduced to the General Court in January 2010 as an act relative to tort reform. The bill was referred to the Senate Commerce, Labor and Consumer Protection Committee, which held a hearing on March 16, 2010. After hearing, on March 18, 2010, the Committee reported that the bill was inexpedient to legislate. Read more