Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Lebron V. Gottlieb And Noneconomic Damages For Medical Malpractice Liability: Closing The Door On Caps, But Opening It To New Possibilities, Jacquelyn M. Hill
Lebron V. Gottlieb And Noneconomic Damages For Medical Malpractice Liability: Closing The Door On Caps, But Opening It To New Possibilities, Jacquelyn M. Hill
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In Lebron v. Gottlieb, decided in February of 2010, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down Public Act 94-677, finding that its cap on noneconomic damages violated the Illinois Constitution's separation of powers clause. The Court primarily relied upon the remittitur doctrine to come to its conclusion. This case comment addresses the Lebron decision and its rationale, particularly its focus on the remittitur doctrine. Additionally, this comment addresses the following concepts: 1) the background and history of attempts to limit common law liability in tort law in Illinois; 2) other jurisdictions' responses to statutory caps; 3) the Lebron majority's distinctions regarding …
Report To Law Revision Commission Regarding Recommendations For Changes To California Arbitration Law , Roger Alford
Report To Law Revision Commission Regarding Recommendations For Changes To California Arbitration Law , Roger Alford
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
In this Article, Professor Alford discusses a report by the Law Revision Commission recommending that certain changes be made to arbitration law in California. It begins by outlining the history of arbitration in California, from its 1961 adoption of the Uniform Arbitration Act, to the 1988 enactment of an international arbitration statute modeled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, to the 1989 enactment of Section 1281.8, which allowed courts to grants provisions remedies to parties involved in arbitration proceedings. It also provides a general overview of the purpose and practice of arbitration law. Then, it provides a chapter-by-chapter analysis the Law …
First, Do No Harm: The Consequences Of Advising Clients About Litigation Alternatives In Medical Malpractice Cases., Katerina P. Lewinbuk
First, Do No Harm: The Consequences Of Advising Clients About Litigation Alternatives In Medical Malpractice Cases., Katerina P. Lewinbuk
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
This Article addresses whether a lawyer's possible duty to inform and advise his client of potential alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options actually leads to better results for doctors in medical malpractice cases. This Article first explains different theories supporting a potential duty and then argues that all such theories praising ADR rely on the assumption that "valuable" alternatives to litigation always exist and are available to all litigants. That notion is arguably not always true for a physician defending against malpractice complaints; thus, the duty becomes almost meaningless in such cases. With the adoption of the National Practitioner Data Bank …