Jury demand in medical malpractice case by means of a case information report was defective. It was neither a “paper” nor a “pleading.”
Continue reading ›Mark Kopec Now
Jury demand in medical malpractice case by means of a case information report was defective. It was neither a “paper” nor a “pleading.”
Continue reading ›Discovery sanction of dismissal was not abuse of discretion. Most
deadlines in the Scheduling Order had passed without being complied with.
Appeals court had no jurisdiction to review the motion to vacate default judgment because of premature notice of appeal.
Continue reading ›OMS, family and radiology doctors are not CQE related specialties for diagnosis of facial fractures in front line patients.
Continue reading ›Without a finding of hospital’s
joint tort-feasor status in medical malpractice case, contribution liability remained by a separate action.
Res judicata barred 2nd medical malpractice case. Plaintiff did not preserve his underlying claims before both suits became final judgments.
Continue reading ›Transfer on forum non conveniens was immediately appealable and was not an abuse of discretion on convenience or public interest.
Continue reading ›Trial court court should
have conducted a hearing on disputed settlement prior to its decision. Clients disputed lawyer’s authority.
Nephrology and urology are “related” specialties for a differential diagnosis in the
emergency room because it is performed by both.
Court allowed scheduling of expert deposition in medical malpractice case after deadline because of plaintiff’s delay and prior cancellation.
Continue reading ›