The Limited Role of Comparative Fault in New Hampshire Medical Negligence Cases By Kevin F. Dugan and Holly B. Haines
I. Introduction: Medical negligence defendants often seek to deflect blame by alleging comparative fault on the part of the patient. Under settled New Hampshire law, such claims should often be dismissed by the trial judge and withdrawn from the jury’s consideration. The following is a general review of comparative fault law in New Hampshire and elsewhere as it applies in the medical malpractice context.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 Dugan2014-01-28 03:15:572017-04-28 03:16:10The Limited Role of Comparative Fault in NH Medical Negligence Cases
http://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpg00Mark Abramsonhttp://www.arbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ABD-logo.jpgMark Abramson2013-11-13 03:04:432017-09-06 20:54:43Balancing the Scales of Justice – Achieving a Critical Mass of Women on the NH Judiciary
by Mark A. Abramson and Holly B. Haines I. Introduction The United States Constitution protects the fundamental rights of citizens to make procreative choices not to conceive or bear children. Consequently, when a child is born as a result of physician negligence that deprives a patient of these fundamental family planning rights, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that the patient may recover damages for that medical malpractice. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has allowed recovery of damages for the costs of pregnancy, labor, delivery and post-natal complications from medical malpractice for a wrongful conception, arising from a negligently performed sterilization procedure or negligently filled birth control prescription and resulting in the birth of a healthy child. In a similar vein, the Court has allowed recovery of damages for the extraordinary costs attendant to a child’s disability from medical malpractice for a wrongful birth, arising from negligent prenatal reproductive advice or testing and resulting in the birth of a disabled child.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 Haines2013-08-28 03:15:122017-04-28 03:15:24Protecting the Right to Make Informed Procreative Choices and Recover for Medical Malpractice From Negligent Preconception Medical Care
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
The Limited Role of Comparative Fault in NH Medical Negligence Cases
/ by Kevin DuganThe Limited Role of Comparative Fault in New Hampshire Medical Negligence Cases
By
Kevin F. Dugan and Holly B. Haines
I. Introduction:
Medical negligence defendants often seek to deflect blame by alleging comparative fault on the part of the patient. Under settled New Hampshire law, such claims should often be dismissed by the trial judge and withdrawn from the jury’s consideration. The following is a general review of comparative fault law in New Hampshire and elsewhere as it applies in the medical malpractice context. Read more
Balancing the Scales of Justice – Achieving a Critical Mass of Women on the NH Judiciary
/ by Mark Abramsonpending
Protecting the Right to Make Informed Procreative Choices and Recover for Medical Malpractice From Negligent Preconception Medical Care
/ by Holly Hainesby Mark A. Abramson and Holly B. Haines
I. Introduction
The United States Constitution protects the fundamental rights of citizens to make procreative choices not to conceive or bear children. Consequently, when a child is born as a result of physician negligence that deprives a patient of these fundamental family planning rights, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that the patient may recover damages for that medical malpractice. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has allowed recovery of damages for the costs of pregnancy, labor, delivery and post-natal complications from medical malpractice for a wrongful conception, arising from a negligently performed sterilization procedure or negligently filled birth control prescription and resulting in the birth of a healthy child. In a similar vein, the Court has allowed recovery of damages for the extraordinary costs attendant to a child’s disability from medical malpractice for a wrongful birth, arising from negligent prenatal reproductive advice or testing and resulting in the birth of a disabled child. Read more
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