Two Important Med. Mal. Cases Handed Down Yesterday. LawReader publishes synopsis of all cases in hours of their release.


The Ct. of Appeals issued 41 cases on Sept. 28th.  LawReader publishes keywords, a synopsis and the full  text of each decision.  The decisions were released at 2 P.M. and the analysis was published on LawReader by 9:30 P.M….nobody does it faster than LawReader.   This week there were some interesting dissents, a ruling on the constitutionality of the Black Lung law, an 11.42 granted a new trial in a case related to the infamous baby stealing case in Ft. Thomas which was discussed in a book published by Eric Deters.  It you want to stay on top of the game, you really should be a LawReader subscriber.


Our Keywords allows you to decide which cases are of interest to your practice, and then you can dig deeper.  We make staying informed on the latest rulings very easy.  No wonder more and more judges are subscribing to LawReader.


LawReader Comment:

In this case the Hospital counsel on Voir Dire asked questions that indicated anti-lawsuit bias of the jury panel.  The defense attorney requested an opportunity to conduct more examination of the panel, but his request was denied.


For the full synopsis and the full text of this important case go to and read this and the other 40 Ct. of Appeals decisions published on Sept. 28, 2007.


14 to be published: Issues discussed in this case: medical malpractice – voir dire- loss of chance- trial order re: discovery: Court correct to uphold trial order: A party must identify each person whom the party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, and state the substance of the fact and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds of each opinion

Failure to comply with the letter and spirit of the aforesaid civil rule may result in the suppression of the expert’s testimony.

Jewish Hospital’s voir dire, counsel asked, without objection, two questions:

Defense Counsel: Does anybody here think lawsuits are driving up the costs of health care?

Defense Counsel: Does anyone here think that Kentucky is losing doctors as result of lawsuits?

The Dawsons contend that “approximately 50% of the jury panel raised their hands.�              (Plaintiff asked for opportunity to ask additional questions of jurors but no additional voir dire was allowed.)

under the loss-of-chance doctrine, the plaintiff must still prove that the defendant breached the applicable standard of care and the breach was a substantial factor in causing a diminished chance of recovery or survival from the underlying disease or injury.

LawReader Comment:  

In this case the hospital had a specialist under contract. When a patient demonstrated problems with delivery of child her doctor had the hospital staff call for the specialist. The specialist did not show up, and the child was born with brain damage, and subsequently died.  The Court held the on-call specialist was not liable. They also held that the patient was not the beneficiary of the employment contract between the hospital and the specialist.  The court did allow the claim against the hospital to proceed.


For the full synopsis and the full text of this important case go to and read this and the other 40 Ct. of Appeals decisions published on Sept. 28, 2007.


15  to be published: Issues discussed in this case: medical malpractice-duty of on call specialist-universal duty rule- patient as 3rd. party beneficiary of hospital staff attorney contract – appeal by co-defendant to dismissal of joint tortfeasor:

It is a universal rule that a joint tort-feasor . . . will not be heard to complain on appeal . . . that the suit was dismissed as to a co-defendant.

(Contract doctor who did not respond to call) … said nothing and did nothing that would establish the traditional physician-patient relationship or any other.

our courts never intended their recent references to “universal duty� as establishing a principle whereby a plaintiff could satisfy the first element of a cause of action for negligence – duty – by mere citation to Grayson.

 [T]he continued viability of the universal duty concept under Kentucky law is questionable

(Plaintiff’s) argument that she was a third-party beneficiary under the (hospitals contract with staff physician)…must fail.

Jurisdiction of Circuit Court is not lost once gained.

In a third important case, the Ct. of Appeals held that a Circuit Court that granted summary judgment on several claims brought by the Plaintiff, and which left claims remaining which totaled less than 4000.  the court then transferred the case to district court.  That was error…the circuit retains jurisdiction once it has jurisdiction.


Another important case this week, discusses the formula to determine with court has jurisdiction when competing courts each have a pending child custody case.



Comments are closed.