Law Commons^™

Malpractice In Scandinavia, Vibe Ulfbeck, Mette Hartlev, Mårten Schultz

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The article describes the special Scandinavian patient insurance system which secures compensation for patients in malpractice cases. For all practical purposes, the insurance based systems have replaced ordinary tort law rules in malpractice cases in Scandinavia. Thus, the basic feature of these systems is that proof of fault is not a requirement for obtaining compensation. Other criteria which are more favourable to the patient are applicable. The article concludes that in general the compensations systems have been successful in making it easier for the patients to obtain compensation. However, the systems also face challenges, some of which stem from the …

Medical Malpractice: The Italian Experience, Claudia Dimarzo

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Beginning with an investigation into the problematic nature of medical liability, the Article overviews the most significant approaches taken by courts and scholars in order to establish whether the physician's position before the patient is comparable with that of either a tortfeasor or a contractor.

Having explained that the most recent approaches in this regard tend toward the recognition of the contractual nature of medical liability, the Author discusses the implications of such a solution, making specific reference to the following issues: 1) the assignment of the burden of proof (along with the distinction between obligations of means and obligations …

Markedly Low: An Argument To Raise The Burden Of Proof For Patent False Marking, Caroline Ayres Teichner

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Federal Circuit's liberal treatment of the patent false-marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, has created a climate in which opportunistic qui tam plaintiffs facing a low burden of proof can recover potentially enormous sums of money under the statute with no showing of competitive injury. This note argues that the Federal Circuit erred by ruling that plaintiffs must prove the key element of false-marking claims—namely, intent to deceive the public—by a mere preponderance of the evidence, and further contends that the court should have adopted the clear and convincing standard instead. Support for this elevated burden of proof can …