- [11/27] NJ officer rescues man from burning truck
- [11/27] Hundreds evacuated after railcar leak in Ohio city
- [11/26] At least 1 in Japan gets HIV from donated blood
- [11/26] Utah-bound plane returns to Calif. after bird hit
- [11/25] Amtrak Crescent with 218 aboard derails in SC
- [11/22] 47 dead in grocery roof collapse in Latvia
- [11/22] 2 killed as strong winds hit Northern California
- [11/20] Russian crash investigators find voice recorder
- [11/20] India: Gold bars worth $1M found in plane lavatory
- [11/20] Search and rescue continues after jet crash off FL
- [11/26] Drugmaker warns on morning-after pill
- [11/26] Ford to recall Escapes again for oil, fuel leaks
- [11/21] Boeing jumbo jet lands at wrong Kansas airport
- [11/21] Kia recalling about 80,000 vans to fix suspensions
- [11/19] Butterball mystery: Turkeys wouldn't fatten up
- [11/19] US safety agency opens probe into Tesla fires
- [11/15] GM to recall nearly 60,000 Chevy Malibus
- [11/15] 1 killed, 1 hurt in Mississippi refinery fire
- [11/14] China announces VW recall of 640,000 vehicles
- [11/14] Gov't fast tracks new safety systems for cars
Judgment for defendant law firm on a legal malpractice claim is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the trial court erred in deciding that plaintiff lacked standing to prosecute this legal malpractice action because plaintiff acquired the cause of action through assignment from the original insurer; and 2) under the facts of this case, where the assignment of the legal malpractice claim was only a small, incidental part of a larger commercial transfer between insurance companies involving the transfer of assets, rights, obligations, and liabilities, the recognized public policy reasons for barring the assignment of a cause of action for legal malpractice do not apply.
Judgment entered in favor of defendant-doctor on plaintiff's wrongful death claim is affirmed, where the trial court did not err in allowing defendant-doctor to present evidence and argument to the jury that a ventilator malfunction was the cause of death, not the negligence of defendant-doctor, even though defendant-hospital previously obtained a nonsuit on the ground that plaintiffs failed to offer any evidence as to its standard of care regarding the alleged ventilator malfunction.
The superior court properly denied plaintiff's petition for writ of administrative mandate to compel defendant to void its decision to suspend plaintiff's medical staff privileges, where: 1) plaintiff was not denied fair procedure by defendant's peer review body; and 2) sufficient evidence supported the defendant's Judicial Review Committee's finding that the suspension of his privileges was reasonable and warranted.
Summary judgment for defendant, the auditor of a collapsed hedge fund, on plaintiff's claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for fraud and negligent misrepresentation under New York law, is: 1) affirmed in part, as to the judgment dismissing plaintiffs' state law claims; 2) vacated in part, as to the dismissal of plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claims because there is a genuine dispute as to whether plaintiffs suffered a direct injury at the time of investment by purchasing their shares in the funds at fraudulently inflated prices; and 3) remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance defendant's scienter argument.
In an action against defendant-former employer for wrongful discharge and its in-house counsel, for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud arising out of plaintiff's firing for dishonesty for a discrepancy between a witness statement that plaintiff wrote and a deposition answer he gave concerning a co-employee's on-the-job injury, summary judgment for defendant-attorney is reversed and remanded, where plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact that but for defendant-attorney's conduct, defendant-former employer would not have fired plaintiff.
The trial court's order granting plaintiffs' new trial motion, following the jury's declaration of a mistrial, in an action alleging wrongful death and medical malpractice, is affirmed, where: 1) the trial court's grant of the new trial motion was proper based upon irregularity in the proceedings; and 2) the trial court's statement of reasons for granting the new trial was sufficient.
Judgment for plaintiffs against defendant law firm for failing to advise plaintiffs of the necessity to renew a judgment they obtained in a matter against William Cheng, which became unenforceable in 2004 when it was not renewed, is reversed, where was no substantial evidence the judgment against Cheng was collectable, either in the past or in the future, had it been renewed.
The district court's denial of defendant's motion for costs and his two motions for attorney's fees, arising from a settlement in a medical malpractice coverage action is: 1) affirmed in part, where the district court properly denied defendant's motion for costs under District of Arizona Local Rule 54.1(d); but 2) vacated in part and remanded, where the court abused its discretion by failing to apply the correct standard under Arizona law when it held that Pang was not entitled to attorney’s fees as the "successful party."
The Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) is authorized to remove a physician from New York's Medicaid program in reliance solely on a consent order between the physician and the Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct (BPMC), regardless of whether BPMC chooses to suspend the physician's license or OMIG conducts an independent investigation. However, here, OMIG's determination to remove petitioner-physician was arbitrary and capricious because OMIG did not explain why the BPMC consent order in this case caused it to exercise its discretion to exclude petitioner-physician from the Medicaid program.
Dismissal of a case brought by plaintiffs, unsuccessful medical malpractice suitors, who sought damages against the authors and publisher of a case report, introduced into evidence in the malpractice trials, that appeared in a peer-reviewed obstetrical journal, is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff's causation allegation is wholly speculative; and consequently, and 2) plaintiffs' claim does not reach the plateau of plausibility, as required under federal civil procedure.
Judgment denying plaintiff's petition to order defendant to reinstate his certified public accountant (CPA) license is affirmed, where: 1) substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings that plaintiff held himself out and practiced as a CPA when he knew his license was expired; 2) substantial evidence supports the findings of unprofessional conduct; and 3) defendant did not abuse its discretion by revoking plaintiff's license.
Judgment in favor of the federal government in a Federal Tort Claims Act action alleging that federal healthcare providers negligently failed to monitor lithium levels on a patient, is reversed and remanded, where: 1) Alaska Statute section 09.20.185 was a state rule of "witness competency" that applied to this action under Federal Rules of Evidence 601, as well as part of Alaska's substantive law; 2) the government's evidence regarding the treating nurse practitioner's negligence should not have been admitted as it did not comply with the Alaska statute; and 2) the error was not harmless.
A damages award to plaintiff and against defendant-physician in a medical malpractice action is affirmed but modified, where: 1) defendant-physician was entitled to an offset as to the economic damages awarded by the jury and to a portion of the non-economic damages, based on pretrial good faith settlements by two co-defendants; and 2) plaintiff's constitutional challenges to the $250,000 limitation on non-economic damages in Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA), fails.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.