I. Introduction:
Medicaid and Medicare are often mistaken for each other yet they share very little in common. It is particularly important to understand the differences between the two when you are resolving a personal injury case in which the plaintiff’s medical care has been funded by one or the other. The following is a very basic description of Medicaid and Medicare focusing on their right to reimbursement from third party recoveries. 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 Abramson2006-01-28 02:43:202023-10-30 15:38:33Medicaid and Medicare Liens in New Hampshire Personal Injury and Medical Malpractice Litigation
The power of myth1 is unparalleled in the media reports of a so-called “medical malpractice crisis” and an alleged need for “tort reform.” Unfortunately, many of the attitudes, beliefs and mores of the American public are based upon these myths and media reports that doctors are being driven out of their practices by so-called “ambulance chasing” attorneys filing “frivolous lawsuits” that raise medical malpractice insurance premiums beyond what the market can bear. A myth, however, is defined as a “legendary narrative” to explain a belief, practice or phenomenon.2 It also is defined as “an imaginary or unverifiable person or thing.”3 Myth-makers, under this definition, are the storytellers of fiction, fable and legend. At least one author has explained that it is the business of mythology proper to turn tragedy into comedy by creating a path between the two. 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 Abramson2005-09-28 02:49:422017-04-28 02:49:58Dispelling the Myths of the Medical Malpractice Crisis and Vindicating the Victims of Medical Malpractice Through Attorney Conducted Voir Dire
I. Introduction:
On June 8, 2005, the New Hampshire Legislature passed SB 214 creating a mandatory pretrial screening panel for medical negligence cases. The bill, codified as R.S.A. Chapter 519-B, is patterned after a similar law in Maine. In this article, we describe the basics of the new procedure and point out three areas in which it appears to run afoul of protections guaranteed by the New Hampshire Constitution. Read more
Unfortunately for our clients, sometimes the medical errors committed by negligent doctors are so egregious that they are non-defensible. Meanwhile, the so-called “medical malpractice crisis” has caused insurance companies to refuse settlement in such cases and to present a new defense based on the “bad genes” or hereditary history of the plaintiff, which purportedly negates any liability under their policies for their bad doctor’s conduct. Defendants traditionally raise this defense through interrogatories and depositions by improperly inquiring into the medical history of the plaintiff’s family members or by inappropriately asking for authorizations to release the medical records of those family members who are not even parties to the medical malpractice case. 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 Abramson2005-04-28 02:37:172017-04-28 02:37:49Protecting Privilege & Precluding Bad Doctors From The Bad Genes Defense The Non Discoverable
I. Introduction:
The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s 2001 adoption of the loss of opportunity theory of recovery led to intense lobbying by the medical and insurance communities culminating in the passage of R.S.A. 507-E:2, III in 2003. This article will address the current status of loss of opportunity claims in the aftermath of that statute. 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 Abramson2005-02-28 02:42:032017-04-28 02:42:23The Current Status of Loss of Opportunity Claims in NH Medical Malpractice Litigation
I. Introduction:
In July of 2004, R.S.A. 516:29-a and R.S.A. 516:29-b took effect purporting to impose federal expert reliability standards and federal expert disclosure rules on New Hampshire state court cases. The expert reliability standards set forth in section 29-a are merely a codification of the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s ruling in Baker Valley Lumber v. Ingersoll-Rand Company.i However, the expert disclosure requirements in section 29-b, specifically the necessity of a report signed by the expert, are significantly more onerous than those in Superior Court Rule 35f.
In this article, we will compare the two new statutes with the existing rules and explain that, to the extent the Legislature has enacted conflicting provisions, it has exceeded its constitutional authority. Specifically, we will show that the report requirement in section 29-b is clearly unconstitutional and, therefore, invalid. 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 Abramson2004-09-28 02:41:022017-04-28 02:41:14The New Expert Reliability and Export Disclosure Rules: What Does R.S.A. 516:29 Require and Is It Constitutional?
Medicaid and Medicare Liens in New Hampshire Personal Injury and Medical Malpractice Litigation
/by Mark AbramsonI. Introduction:
Medicaid and Medicare are often mistaken for each other yet they share very little in common. It is particularly important to understand the differences between the two when you are resolving a personal injury case in which the plaintiff’s medical care has been funded by one or the other. The following is a very basic description of Medicaid and Medicare focusing on their right to reimbursement from third party recoveries. Read more
Dispelling the Myths of the Medical Malpractice Crisis and Vindicating the Victims of Medical Malpractice Through Attorney Conducted Voir Dire
/by Mark AbramsonThe power of myth1 is unparalleled in the media reports of a so-called “medical malpractice crisis” and an alleged need for “tort reform.” Unfortunately, many of the attitudes, beliefs and mores of the American public are based upon these myths and media reports that doctors are being driven out of their practices by so-called “ambulance chasing” attorneys filing “frivolous lawsuits” that raise medical malpractice insurance premiums beyond what the market can bear. A myth, however, is defined as a “legendary narrative” to explain a belief, practice or phenomenon.2 It also is defined as “an imaginary or unverifiable person or thing.”3 Myth-makers, under this definition, are the storytellers of fiction, fable and legend. At least one author has explained that it is the business of mythology proper to turn tragedy into comedy by creating a path between the two. Read more
NH’s Medical Malpractice Screening Panel Statute: Constitutional Considerations
/by Mark AbramsonI. Introduction:
On June 8, 2005, the New Hampshire Legislature passed SB 214 creating a mandatory pretrial screening panel for medical negligence cases. The bill, codified as R.S.A. Chapter 519-B, is patterned after a similar law in Maine. In this article, we describe the basics of the new procedure and point out three areas in which it appears to run afoul of protections guaranteed by the New Hampshire Constitution. Read more
Protecting Privilege & Precluding Bad Doctors From The Bad Genes Defense The Non Discoverable
/by Mark AbramsonUnfortunately for our clients, sometimes the medical errors committed by negligent doctors are so egregious that they are non-defensible. Meanwhile, the so-called “medical malpractice crisis” has caused insurance companies to refuse settlement in such cases and to present a new defense based on the “bad genes” or hereditary history of the plaintiff, which purportedly negates any liability under their policies for their bad doctor’s conduct. Defendants traditionally raise this defense through interrogatories and depositions by improperly inquiring into the medical history of the plaintiff’s family members or by inappropriately asking for authorizations to release the medical records of those family members who are not even parties to the medical malpractice case. Read more
The Current Status of Loss of Opportunity Claims in NH Medical Malpractice Litigation
/by Mark AbramsonI. Introduction:
The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s 2001 adoption of the loss of opportunity theory of recovery led to intense lobbying by the medical and insurance communities culminating in the passage of R.S.A. 507-E:2, III in 2003. This article will address the current status of loss of opportunity claims in the aftermath of that statute. Read more
The New Expert Reliability and Export Disclosure Rules: What Does R.S.A. 516:29 Require and Is It Constitutional?
/by Mark AbramsonI. Introduction:
In July of 2004, R.S.A. 516:29-a and R.S.A. 516:29-b took effect purporting to impose federal expert reliability standards and federal expert disclosure rules on New Hampshire state court cases. The expert reliability standards set forth in section 29-a are merely a codification of the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s ruling in Baker Valley Lumber v. Ingersoll-Rand Company.i However, the expert disclosure requirements in section 29-b, specifically the necessity of a report signed by the expert, are significantly more onerous than those in Superior Court Rule 35f.
In this article, we will compare the two new statutes with the existing rules and explain that, to the extent the Legislature has enacted conflicting provisions, it has exceeded its constitutional authority. Specifically, we will show that the report requirement in section 29-b is clearly unconstitutional and, therefore, invalid. Read more