In Maman v. Marx Realty & Improvement Co. Inc., the plaintiff, an ornamental ironworker, and a coworker were retrieving a piece of steel Q-decking for installation when the plaintiff slipped and/or tripped, lost his balance, and fell through an opening located between two steel beams. The plaintiff was wearing a harness with a lanyard at the time of the accident, but was not tied off....

As robot, drone and 3D printing technologies advance, human involvement and liability concerns change

Technological advancements in medical uses of robots, drones, and 3D printing continue at an impressive pace. Devices leveraging these advancements will enter mainstream medicine over the next five years, by some estimates.

The increasing use of advanced medical devices will reduce the need for certain staff, and will likely decrease available jobs for health care providers. The advent of new technology also poses new liability concerns due to a shift in the delivery of care.

To utilize this technology effectively, mitigate risk, and reduce job security fears, it is important to understand both the benefits of these advancements and the liabilities associated with their use, based upon current evidence.

By the time you read this, the most comprehensive and sweeping data security regulation will have just gone into effect. With a May 25, 2018 effective date, the European Union’s Global Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) reaches around the globe, including to entities in the U.S. Noncompliance can lead to significant fines of up to four percent of annual global revenue or 20 million euros, as well as civil and even criminal liability.

It is critical for U.S. entities and legal and insurance professionals advising those entities to be aware of the scope of this regulation to determine whether they are subject to it, and to take the necessary steps towards compliance. Even if it is determined that the GDPR is not applicable to your organization, there are a number of practical steps you can take to better your overall cyber hygiene.

In today’s litigious society, it is becoming common practice for attorneys to reach out to plaintiffs’ or claimants’ treating physicians, including their psychiatrists, and request their assistance in litigation. This request may be as simple as asking a practitioner to discuss the treatment rendered to a patient, or as involved as having a practitioner act as a medical expert on a patient’s behalf.

Irrespective of the extent of the contribution, the participation is never as simple as the attorney will lead a practitioner to believe. As healers devoted to assisting patients, practitioners’ initial instincts are to help. However, while their intentions may be noble and admirable, practitioners may be setting themselves up for unintended legal ramifications.