No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Select Recent Court Decisions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2021
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Recent Developments in Health Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 2020
References
1 No. 34300, 2001 Nev. LEXIS 7. (Jan. 30, 2001).
2 See id. at *1
3 See id. at *5.
4 See id.
5 See id. at*13.
6 See id. at *5.
7 See id.
8 See id. at *6.
9 See. e.g., Thompson v. American Tobacco Co., 189 F.R.D. 544, 552 (D. Minn. 1999); Blumenberg, Amy B., Medical Monitoring Funds: The Periodic Payment of Future Medical Surveillance Expenses in Toxic Exposure Litigation, 43 HASTINGS L.J. 661, 667-75 (1992)Google Scholar.
10 See Bower v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 206 W. Va. 133, 138 (1999).
11 See 2001 Nev. LEXIS 7, at *11.
12 See id. at *12.
13 See id.
14 See id. at 14.
15 See id.
16 See id.
17 See id. at * 18-19.
1 No. 01-98-09922-CV, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 8563 (1st Cir. Dec. 28, 2000).
2 See id. at *22.
3 See id. at *38.
4 See 42U.S.C.A. §§ 11101-11152 (West 2000).
5 See 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 8563, at *5.
6 See id.
7 See id. at *13.
8 See id. at *20.
9 See id. at *22.
10 See id.
11 See id.
12 See id.
13 See id. at *22.
14 See id. at *25.
15 See id. !6 927S.W.2d 12 (Tex. 1996).
17 See 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 8563, at *37.
18 See id. at *38.
19 See id. at *52.
1 No. 99-11241,2001 WL 91380 (11th Cir. Feb 2, 2001).
2 See id. at *1.
3 See 29 U.S.C. § 1000 et seq.
4 See 2001 WL 91380 at *2; 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1).
5 See 2001 WL 91380 at *6.
6 See id.
7 Id. at *4.
8 See id. at *6.
9 See id. ax *1. !0See id. at *8.
11 See id. at *10.
12 See id.
13 Id. at *11.
14 See id. at *12.
15 See id.
16 Id.
17 See id. at *13. 18See id.
19 See id. at *14.
20 See id.
21 See id.
22 See id. at *20.
23 See id.
24 See id al*23
25 See id.
26 See id. at n.34.
27 See id. at *2.
1 No. Cl-00-366, 2001 Minn. App. LEXIS 140 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2001).
2 See id. at *21-22. 3See Shea v. Esensten, 208 F.3d 712, 717 (8th Cir. 2000).
4 See id.
5 See id. at 721.
6 See id. at *7.
7 See 2001 Minn. App. LEXIS 140, at *10. 8 Id. at *12 (emphasis in original).
9 See id.
1 No. A-63, 2001 N.J. LEXIS 8 (Jan, 23, 2001).
2 See id. at *36.
3 See id. at *10.
4 See id. at *12.
5 See, e.g., Daly v. United States, 946 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding a disclosure requirement in the case where an examination reveals a medical abnormality); Meena v. Wilburn, 603 So. 2d 866 (Miss. 1992) (holding that the absence of a physician-patient relationship will not insulate a physician from liability where the traditional elements of negligence are established); Peace v. Weisman, 368 S.E.2d 319 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988) (Deen, P.J., dissenting) (concluding that an examination did create a physician patient relationship).
6 2001 N.J. LEXIS 8, at *24.
7 197 A.2d857(N.J. 1964).
8 See 2001 N.J. LEXIS 8, at *25, quoting Beadling v. Sirotta, 197 A.2d at 862.
9 682 A.2d 1220 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996)
10 See 2001 N.J. LEXIS 8, at *29, quoting Ranier v. Frieman, 682 A.2d at 1223.
11 See N.J.ADMIN.CODE. tit. 13:35-6.5(f)(3).
12 See Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, Opinion E-10.03.
13 See 2001 N.J. LEXIS 8, at *31.
14 Id. at*30-31.