Legal Insight

Kentucky Supreme Court Addresses Negligent Credentialing

2017 has been a banner year for developments in healthcare litigation in Kentucky. While the focus has largely been on medical review panels, another issue of importance has been that of negligent credentialing claims brought against hospitals. Nationwide, states have been split on whether this cause of action is recognized. Lost in the recent rulings regarding medical review panels was the Kentucky Supreme Court’s quiet release of its opinion on November 2, 2017 striking down negligent credentialing as a separate and new cause of action against hospitals. This opinion provides clarity for hospitals facing claims of negligence related to physicians with staff privileges at their facilities and also provides guidance for counsel to properly defend cases with credentialing allegations. More >

How to Minimize Professional Liability Risk: Five Practical Steps

One of the biggest challenges professionals face is when their very livelihood is threatened by litigation alleging professional malpractice.  Although the risk of litigation is inherent to many professions, there are a variety of strategies which, if implemented appropriately, can help mitigate that risk.

Fortunately, many of these practical steps can be taken by professionals at the outset of a project to prevent problems from arising at a later date. While the following tactics won’t prevent every potential problem, their utilization can reduce the risk of finding yourself – and your career – in a compromising position. More >

Rule 30(b)(6) in Depositions and at Trial

One of the big “if only” moments in corporate litigation concerns testimony: if only a corporation as a corporation could face deposition. Despite the legal fiction that corporations have an identity, it remains impossible, absent some serious and frightening advances in future technology, for a corporation to testify on its own behalf. To get around this dilemma, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include Rule 30(b)(6) (“30(b)(6)”). This rule allows a party to name an entity such as a corporation, an association or a governmental agency as a deponent, and that entity will then designate a representative to be deposed on behalf of the company. (Kentucky’s Civil Rule of Procedure 30.02(6) substantially tracks the federal rule, so this information applies to both Kentucky and federal courts.) The rub is that 30(b)(6) deponents face a different set of standards for testimony than regular deponents, and that difference could create havoc for a client, up to and including sanctions. More >