Mark A. Abramson and Kevin F. Dugan
I. Introduction:
The standard Structuring Conference Order form available on the Superior Court’s website includes a deadline for the defendants to disclose the identity of every unnamed party to whom they intend to seek an apportionment of fault pursuant to DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Engineers, Inc. In multi-defendant medical negligence cases, we believe that the DeBenedetto disclosure deadline should not only apply to unnamed parties, but should also apply to named parties so that each defendant must expressly state whether or not he intends to blame another defendant. This prevents defendants in such cases from waiting for co-defendants to settle out of the case before pointing the finger at them. 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 Dugan2010-04-28 03:07:332017-04-28 03:07:49Expanding the DeBenedetto Disclosure Requirement in Multi-Defendant Civil Cases
By
Kevin F. Dugan
It has been almost five years since the New Hampshire legislature enacted RSA ch. 519-B, creating mandatory screening panels for all medical injury claims. According to the most recent report from Superior Court Center, dated September 24, 2009, during the first four fiscal years that the statute was in effect (FY 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009), 269 medical malpractice cases were filed in the Superior Court and only 56 panel hearings were held. Meanwhile, the mean time from filing suit to disposition of medical malpractice cases increased from 324 days to 542 days, and the mean time from filing suit to occurrence of a panel hearing increased from 513 days to 575 days. Of the 269 medical malpractice cases that were filed, 127 cases resolved without a panel hearing occurring and only 32 resolved after a panel hearing. Eight of the 32 cases that resolved after a panel hearing, required full jury trials for resolution in 2008 and 2009. In 2006 and 2007, no jury trials were required for resolution of medical malpractice cases. 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 Dugan2010-03-28 03:05:152017-04-28 03:05:44Legislation Pending to Reform Screening Panel Process
I. Introduction:
In “‘Two Roads Diverge . . .’ Comparing ‘Loss of Chance’ in NH & MA,” NH Bar News, Vol. 20, No. 5 (October 16, 2009), Brad Holt seemed to argue that the New Hampshire legislature has barred all medical negligence claims when the plaintiff’s pre-negligence prognosis for survival is less than 50%. I disagree. The statute at issue, RSA 507-E:2, III, actually permits such a plaintiff to pursue a number of damage claims. Thus, malpractice cases involving the failure to timely diagnose a fatal disease should not be rejected out of hand. They must be carefully assessed and considered on their own unique facts. 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 Abramson2009-11-28 03:08:412017-04-28 03:08:55Beyond ‘Loss of Chance’ – Valid Medical Negligence Claims When A Cure Was Already Unlikely
By
Mark A. Abramson and Kevin F. Dugan
I.Background:
Medical malpractice screening panels under RSA ch. 519-B are now a regular part of our practice. While the screening panel hearing and all proceedings relating to the panel are confidential to outsiders, that does not mean that testimony presented at a panel hearing can be hidden from the jury when a case goes to trial. In fact, the purpose and intent of the statute states that the panel proceedings are only confidential “unless and until the matter proceeds to trial.” In light of this clearly stated legislative intent, when a medical malpractice case proceeds to trial after a screening panel hearing, the litigants should be allowed to comment upon and use all of the panel testimony and affidavits presented by the parties and their experts at trial. 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 Dugan2009-07-28 03:06:402017-04-28 03:06:56Maximizing Medical Malpractice Screening Panels Through the Use of Screening Panel Testimony at Trial
A. Introduction:
Continuing the theme of two recent articles1 by our partners, Mark Abramson and Holly Haines, this article addresses yet another area in which a medical care provider can be held liable for harm to a non-patient third party. Specifically, we address the law that applies when a dangerous involuntarily admitted psychiatric patient is prematurely discharged and causes harm to another. 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 Abramson2009-04-28 02:59:262024-09-01 20:39:06Negligent Discharge of an Involuntary Admitted Patient: Third Party’s Cause of Action for Harm Caused by Prematurely Released Patient
Medical Provider Liability to Non-Patient Third-Parties for Negligent Medical Care and Prescribing Practices
By Mark A. Abramson and Holly B. Haines
In our recent article regarding Medical Malpractice Liability in the Information Age, we discussed how medical providers outsourcing their services and contracting with independent physician groups can assume liability to third-parties as the intended beneficiaries of the services the provider contracted for. This article examines third party liability in another situation: when members of the public are harmed by patients under the care of prescribed medications. While the New Hampshire Supreme Court has yet to address this issue directly, we contend that medical provider liability to third-parties foreseeably put at risk of injury by medical treatment is consistent with existing case law. 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 Haines2009-01-28 03:00:152017-04-28 03:00:26Medical Provider Liability to Non-Patient Third Parties for Negligent Medical Care and Prescribing Practices
Expanding the DeBenedetto Disclosure Requirement in Multi-Defendant Civil Cases
/by Kevin DuganMark A. Abramson and Kevin F. Dugan
I. Introduction:
The standard Structuring Conference Order form available on the Superior Court’s website includes a deadline for the defendants to disclose the identity of every unnamed party to whom they intend to seek an apportionment of fault pursuant to DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Engineers, Inc. In multi-defendant medical negligence cases, we believe that the DeBenedetto disclosure deadline should not only apply to unnamed parties, but should also apply to named parties so that each defendant must expressly state whether or not he intends to blame another defendant. This prevents defendants in such cases from waiting for co-defendants to settle out of the case before pointing the finger at them. Read more
Legislation Pending to Reform Screening Panel Process
/by Kevin DuganBy
Kevin F. Dugan
It has been almost five years since the New Hampshire legislature enacted RSA ch. 519-B, creating mandatory screening panels for all medical injury claims. According to the most recent report from Superior Court Center, dated September 24, 2009, during the first four fiscal years that the statute was in effect (FY 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009), 269 medical malpractice cases were filed in the Superior Court and only 56 panel hearings were held. Meanwhile, the mean time from filing suit to disposition of medical malpractice cases increased from 324 days to 542 days, and the mean time from filing suit to occurrence of a panel hearing increased from 513 days to 575 days. Of the 269 medical malpractice cases that were filed, 127 cases resolved without a panel hearing occurring and only 32 resolved after a panel hearing. Eight of the 32 cases that resolved after a panel hearing, required full jury trials for resolution in 2008 and 2009. In 2006 and 2007, no jury trials were required for resolution of medical malpractice cases. Read more
Beyond ‘Loss of Chance’ – Valid Medical Negligence Claims When A Cure Was Already Unlikely
/by Mark AbramsonBy: Mark A. Abramson
I. Introduction:
In “‘Two Roads Diverge . . .’ Comparing ‘Loss of Chance’ in NH & MA,” NH Bar News, Vol. 20, No. 5 (October 16, 2009), Brad Holt seemed to argue that the New Hampshire legislature has barred all medical negligence claims when the plaintiff’s pre-negligence prognosis for survival is less than 50%. I disagree. The statute at issue, RSA 507-E:2, III, actually permits such a plaintiff to pursue a number of damage claims. Thus, malpractice cases involving the failure to timely diagnose a fatal disease should not be rejected out of hand. They must be carefully assessed and considered on their own unique facts. Read more
Maximizing Medical Malpractice Screening Panels Through the Use of Screening Panel Testimony at Trial
/by Kevin DuganBy
Mark A. Abramson and Kevin F. Dugan
I.Background:
Medical malpractice screening panels under RSA ch. 519-B are now a regular part of our practice. While the screening panel hearing and all proceedings relating to the panel are confidential to outsiders, that does not mean that testimony presented at a panel hearing can be hidden from the jury when a case goes to trial. In fact, the purpose and intent of the statute states that the panel proceedings are only confidential “unless and until the matter proceeds to trial.” In light of this clearly stated legislative intent, when a medical malpractice case proceeds to trial after a screening panel hearing, the litigants should be allowed to comment upon and use all of the panel testimony and affidavits presented by the parties and their experts at trial. Read more
Negligent Discharge of an Involuntary Admitted Patient: Third Party’s Cause of Action for Harm Caused by Prematurely Released Patient
/by Mark AbramsonA. Introduction:
Continuing the theme of two recent articles1 by our partners, Mark Abramson and Holly Haines, this article addresses yet another area in which a medical care provider can be held liable for harm to a non-patient third party. Specifically, we address the law that applies when a dangerous involuntarily admitted psychiatric patient is prematurely discharged and causes harm to another. Read more
Medical Provider Liability to Non-Patient Third Parties for Negligent Medical Care and Prescribing Practices
/by Holly HainesMedical Provider Liability to Non-Patient Third-Parties for Negligent Medical Care and Prescribing Practices
By Mark A. Abramson and Holly B. Haines
In our recent article regarding Medical Malpractice Liability in the Information Age, we discussed how medical providers outsourcing their services and contracting with independent physician groups can assume liability to third-parties as the intended beneficiaries of the services the provider contracted for. This article examines third party liability in another situation: when members of the public are harmed by patients under the care of prescribed medications. While the New Hampshire Supreme Court has yet to address this issue directly, we contend that medical provider liability to third-parties foreseeably put at risk of injury by medical treatment is consistent with existing case law. Read more