Return of Ramirez
The Colorado Supreme Court has issued an amended opinion in the Ramirez case (see our posts of 3/27/07, 3/28/07, 4/1/07, & 4/4/07). In footnote 10, the court now cites its earlier decision in Wilkerson, distinguishing it on the basis that the Wilkerson expert offered a quantitative conclusion, whereas the Ramirez expert did not.
In a related vein, Jim Beck and Mark Herrmann comment at Drug and Device Law on the proposal, floated in comment e to section 28 of Tentative Draft #5 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, to abolish the "reasonable medical certainty" requirement. They take umbrage at the proposal, whereas we do not. We'll have more to say in a day or so.
In a related vein, Jim Beck and Mark Herrmann comment at Drug and Device Law on the proposal, floated in comment e to section 28 of Tentative Draft #5 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, to abolish the "reasonable medical certainty" requirement. They take umbrage at the proposal, whereas we do not. We'll have more to say in a day or so.
Labels: Colorado
2 Comments:
You've said we're wrong. That's OK, we're used to our opponents making such statements. But you've promised a critique in a couple of days. It's been almost a month and we're still waiting.
Whatever you put up, we'll do our best to shoot it down - we promise.
Beck and Herrmann
Well, we like to be sportsmanlike, and it is taking a little more time than expected to compose a response that will be rebuttable.
Post a Comment
<< Home