Children of recently deceased residents are often shocked at the condition of their parent's skin. Commonly, the nursing home is blamed. In most instances this blame is misplaced.
In 2004, a physician specializing in pain management, opened a clinic. The prosecution asserted that the clinic was nothing more than a "pill mill" catering to people who were hopelessly addicted to pain medicine, primarily opioids. The evidence showed that defendant engaged in only the most cursory examinations and rarely ordered diagnostic scans. Notwithstanding the options for treating pain, the doctor regularly prescribed opioids as a first resort. Appointments were not necessary and all payments were required to be made in cash. From 2008 through October 2011, defendant wrote over 21,000 prescriptions for controlled substances, at an increasing pace, with more than half for substances containing the opioid oxycodone, and more than a quarter for alprazolam (Xanax).
Americans who travel abroad are sometimes injured in accidents, just like at home. Perhaps the most common accident is a slip and fall at a hotel or resort. Upon returning to the United States for treatment, the injured party may call a lawyer and ask if her or she can sue in the United States. The answer is probably no.
The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 amends the federal criminal code to allow an individual, eligible to carry a concealed firearm in his or her state of residence, to carry that handgun in another state, even in a school zone, that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.
Everyone Has the Right to Refuse Life Saving Medical Treatment
The Supreme Court and President Trump Agree -- Nursing Homes Plaintiffs May Be Required to Arbitrate
Melito & Adolfsen P.C.
"There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferrari's, Rolex's and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term "official act" leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court."
New York's Highest Court, the NY Court of Appeals, issued a decision holding that the phrase "caused by your acts or omissions" in the additional insured endorsement requires that the named insured wrongful actions be a proximate cause of the accident. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division which had held that it was the same as "arise out of" such that employee injuries always created additional insured coverage. The decision narrows the coverage an requires some affirmative fault on the part of the named insured for the coverage to apply.