Posts Tagged ‘damages’

Legal Boot Camp Class Four. Sean and Kristy’s Story: How a Jury Award is Conformed to the Cap.

Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

From the Editor. Please see our disclaimer at the end of this blog for a better understanding of the limitations of this series and our mission statement.

Last week, we published a blog about Sean and Kristy. You will recall that Sean died from excessive bleeding when the nurse overdosed him with anticoagulation medication after a major surgery. You will also recall that after careful consideration Kristy decided to file a medical malpractice claim against the nurse and her employer, the hospital.

Now, let’s skip forward.  Kristy’s Complaint stated two causes of action: survival and wrongful death. Under the survival claim, Kristy was the only named Plaintiff because she was named Personal Representative of Sean’s Estate. Only a personal representative can bring a survival action on behalf of a decedent. Kristy and Kira (Sean’ daughter) were both named Plaintiffs under the wrongful death count. Generally speaking, only a parent, spouse, or child (with some exceptions) can bring claims for wrongful death.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of 2.5 million with 1 million awarded in the survival action and 1.5 million awarded in the wrongful death action. Furthermore, in the wrongful death action, the jury awarded Kristy 1 million dollars and Kira 500,000 dollars.  All of these damages were for pain and suffering.  You will recall that Maryland has a cap on non-economic damages. The cap imposes a limitation of about 812,000 dollars when the jury’s award is for wrongful death and survival (this is regardless of the number of claims or claimants).

How will the Court reduce the verdict so that it conforms to the statutory cap? The answer is mandated by statute: the Court must make proportionate reductions in order to reduce the jury award to the statutory cap.  Here is how it works:  The total recovery in this case is 2.5 million (1 million under the survival action, 1.5 million under the wrongful death action). 1.5 million represents 60% of the total recovery of 2.5 million.  1 million represents 40% of the total recovery.

Now, 40% of the 812,000 cap is 320,800 dollars. 60% of the 812,000 cap is 487,200 dollars. Therefore, the monetary award under the survival action will be reduced by the Court to 324,800 dollars. The overall award under the wrongful death action will be reduced by the Court proportionately to 487,200 dollars.

Furthermore, proportionate reductions are necessary to conform the wrongful death award to the cap.  An overall amount of 1.5 million was awarded in the wrongful death action.  From that award, the jury gave Kira 500,000 dollars and Kristy 1 million dollars.  One million represents about 67% of the total recovery in the wrongful death action. Kira’s award of 500,000 dollars represent 33.3%. Applying these percentages to the capped wrongful death recovery of 487,200 dollars, Kira’s award will be reduced from 500,000 dollars to 160,776 (33% of 487,200) dollars. Kristy’s award of 1 million dollars will be reduced to 326,424 dollars (67% of 487,200). This is all Maryland law will permit them to recover. Justice or injustice, what do you think?

Related Posts:

Malpractice Wrongful Death Lawsuit by Couple Falsely Accused of Abusing Their Child Filed Against Children’s Hospital

Maryland’s Cap and a Message from the former MAJ President re the Goings-On in Annapolis

Legal Boot Camp (First Class): The Story of Pam – Maryland’s Law on Earning Capacity

“Wrongful Death and Survival Actions”

Disclaimer: As is the case with all of our blogs and the writings posted on our website, we are not offering legal advice to our readers. This information in our series,Legal Boot Camp, is being presented in the hope that we can provide some education about the law in Maryland and the District of Columbia. The law in the field of personal injury (and particularly in our sub-specialty of medical malpractice) can be complex and confusing at times. Even in these two jurisdictions where we are licensed to practice, the laws and their interpretation by the courts can vary significantly. It is simply our hope that by presenting this series – Legal Boot Camp - that we can provide a better understanding of some legal principles that can come into play when bringing a civil claim or lawsuit for damages as a result of the wrongdoing of others.

For those who do not live in either Maryland or the Washington, D.C., we hope that we can at least raise some issues for you to consider when you speak with an attorney licensed to practice in the state in which you live. Many times the basic concepts of law are similar. We hope that by raising some of these issues applicable to Maryland and the District of Columbia, you will at least have a basic understanding of some terms and principles that may apply to your situation. Don’t be afraid to raise these issues with your attorney. Education – be it in law or medicine – is our main goal.
Finally, please see our introductory blog for Legal Boot Camp for a better understanding of our mission in presenting this series.

 

How Much is Your Marriage Worth?

Friday, June 10th, 2011

When you’re injured as a result of someone else’s negligence, it’s easy to see why you have a legal claim. You are entitled to recover for the injuries that you suffered, including economic damages (lost wages, medical bills, etc.) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering). However, if you’re married, there is another category of damages that you may be able to recover – damage to your marriage. It’s called Loss of Consortium and is an important element of damages in the right circumstances. It is a legal recognition that the marital relationship itself – separate and apart from the injury to the individual – is a protected interest that is deserving of compensation if it has been harmed by the negligence of another person.

Loss of consortium has an interesting history. Under Common Law (which roughly translates to “the olden days” in this circumstance) a woman had no right to sue for loss of consortium. It was only the man who had the right. That was because the woman was essentially seen as the man’s property. If she was injured and unable to provide her usual domestic or bedroom duties as a result of someone else’s negligence, the man could recover for the loss of such services. He had basically lost some of the value of his property so he was entitled to compensation. Eventually, the courts (most courts, at least) recognized the unfairness of such a one-sided system and ruled that women could also make such a claim if their husband suffered an injury. However, there are still some states (Virginia, for example) that do not recognize loss of consortium at all, no matter who tries to bring it.

Back to the present day. A loss of consortium claim arises when one spouse suffers a serious injury that impairs the marital relationship. An easy example is if a husband suffers a traumatic brain injury as a result of a doctor’s negligence. In that circumstance, the man would be able to file a claim for his own damages, of course, but he and his wife could also allege loss of consortium because the brain injury impacts the marriage. The couple will now find it more difficult to do the things they use to do together as man and wife – going out together, caring for their children, taking vacations, intimacy, and the day-to-day marital difficulties that arise because the husband now has a brain injury. In Maryland, a jury can award monetary damages for the couples’ loss of companionship, affection, assistance and yes, sexual relations. It is notoriously difficult to put a dollar figure on such injuries, but the law recognizes the right of a husband and wife to recover financially if their marriage has been damaged. How much money to award for such injury is for the jury to decide. Like other damages, it is always the plaintiffs’ burden to prove that the marriage has been injured, which is usually done through the testimony of the husband and wife.

Speaking of intimacy, some pundits say that loss of consortium is just a code-word for damage to the couples’ sex life. This is not entirely true as the marital relationship entails far more than just sex, but these pundits have a point. A loss of consortium claim usually does include an allegation that the couples’ sex life has been impacted. If you are bringing a lawsuit, you have to understand that when you allege loss of consortium, you are opening up the door on the most intimate parts of your life. Defense attorneys will often ask highly personal questions – how often did you have sex before the injury, how often do you have sex now, how exactly does the injury make sex more difficult, have either of you ever strayed from the marriage, etc. Some couples are understandably reluctant to discuss such things. Thankfully, most defense attorneys are just as uncomfortable asking these questions as the plaintiffs are answering them, so the questions tend to be over with relatively quickly. Be aware, though, that if you do file a loss of consortium claim, your sex life may become an issue in open court.

In the District of Columbia, a loss of consortium claim is for similar damages, but with a slight difference. While in Maryland the claim belongs to both the husband and the wife and is brought by them jointly, in the District of Columbia the claim belongs solely to the non-injured spouse. Any money awarded by the jury for loss of consortium goes to the non-injured spouse rather than to the couple jointly.

Lastly, Maryland’s cap on non-economic damages applies to claims for loss of consortium. There is no separate cap for this claim. In other words, there is a single cap that applies to all allegations of injuries, whether it’s an injury to the individual or an injury to the marriage.  The Maryland Legislature does not allow a couple to receive more money for injury to the marriage above and beyond the cap, even if a jury decides that that money should be given. Just another example of how Maryland’s cap punishes plaintiffs.

Have you ever suffered an injury that impacted your marriage? Did you file a loss of consortium claim? What was the result?

Related Nash and Associates Links

Maryland’s alleged healthcare “crisis”

Insurance and Traumatic Brain Injury

Acquired Brain Injuries

 

 

Legal Boot Camp (First Class): The Story of Pam – Maryland’s Law on Earning Capacity

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

Image from cnbc.com

Wondering what “Legal Boot Camp” is all about? Check out our announcement, find out, come along, have some fun and learn some “law stuff” while you’re at it.   Please see our disclaimer at the end of this blog for a better understanding of the limitations of this series and our mission statement.

Class is now in session….

A 41-year-old woman, Pam, who was laid off from her job as a swimming instructor and swim coach in December of 2009, has been struggling to find a new position for the last few years. Even though Pam had been working as a swimming instructor full-time for the past 18 years, she felt that she needed to jump into a new career while waiting to find a new position as a swimming instructor and coach. Starting in October of 2010, her father died leaving her a rundown home that he had recently purchased with the intent of renovating it. Pam felt that she could put her physical fitness and knowledge of home aesthetics to work, not to mention the ideas she picked up watching renovations shows while unemployed, by renovating the home her father left and selling it for a profit. Since Pam thought that this could be her new vocation along with being a swim instructor, she formed a company for her new real estate and renovation business. She also bought a few additional run-down properties at auction. She started the renovations on the first house and completed a stunning new kitchen and had begun the demolition for a new bath by January of 2011. While still unemployed as a swimming instructor and before making any profit on her real estate business, Pam underwent a routine medical procedure at a local area hospital. Unfortunately, while still in the hospital following the procedure, she was severely injured and has been left paraplegic.

Now, Pam is considering filing a lawsuit as a result of the negligent care she received while hospitalized. Given the extent of her injuries, she will not be able to return to her job as a swimming instructor and she will have to hire workers if she is going to complete any additional renovations in the homes that she purchased. She may be able to work again, but not without significant assistance and not in either of her prior capacities. The question for today is what damages might she be able to claim in terms of a lost wages claim or a diminished earning capacity claim in Maryland.

Unemployment Not a Bar to Recovery for Loss of Earnings

In personal injury actions in Maryland, unemployment or self-employment without earning a profit at the time of injury are not a bar to recovery for loss of earning or loss of earning capability. In Ihrie v. Anthony, to Use of Gov’t Emp. Ins. Co., 205 Md. 296,107 A.2d 104 (1954), a woman was injured in a car accident while unemployed. She had previously worked in several jobs, both office positions and real estate work. Ihrie, 205 Md. at 303-304,107 A.2d at 107. After her injury, she was unable to continue to work in these types of positions, though there is some dispute about that. Id. at 304, 107 A.2d at 107. What is important to consider for Pam is that in the Ihrie case, the injured woman was allowed to recover. Id. at 309, 107 A.2d at 110.

The court held that “[t]he fact that the plaintiff was unemployed at the time of the accident and for several years prior thereto is not fatal to her right to recover.” Id. at 305, 107 A.2d at 107. In that case, like the one we are considering today, the woman who was injured had worked in the past and had a history of employment and wages to consider. The judges took the woman’s injuries and her past earning history into account in making their decision:

We are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence of the permanence of the plaintiff’s injuries and of their impairing her earning power to warrant the submission of those issues to the jury and that there was sufficient evidence to serve the jury as a guide in measuring the extent of her loss of earnings.

Id. at 306-307, 107 A.2d 104, 108. Pam’s injuries and her past history of employment as a swim instructor should be presented at trial in her claim for loss of earnings. The past year and a half of unemployment should not bar her recovery since she has an eighteen-year history of employment to measure her loss of earnings for the future.

Can She Recover for Her Business?

What about Pam’s fledgling real estate business? She was working herself on the houses, which she will not be able to do moving forward. In order to complete the renovations and sell the homes, she will have to hire renovators at a significant expense. Since her business did not yet have a profit, she does not have the same sort of earnings history as she does for her past job as a swim instructor. However, she may still be able to recover for a loss of earning capacity.

In Anderson v. Litzenberg, 115 Md. App. 549, 694 A.2d 150 (1997), the court found that if someone is self-employed in a not yet profitable business at the time of their injury, they may still be able to recover for their loss of earning capacity. The case examined the situation of a man who was injured in an accident while he was partially self-employed in a real estate business that was not making a profit. Id. The court examined the question of loss of earning capacity. Id. The court defined impairment of earning capacity as the “lost capacity to earn, rather than what a plaintiff would have earned.” Id. at 572, 694 A.2d at 161 (internal citations omitted). The court explains that:

It is generally recognized that impairment of earning capacity seeks to compensate the plaintiff for a reduction in his ability to earn through his personal services. Once the fact of impaired earning capacity is established, the plaintiff must submit evidence so that the extent of the impairment can reasonably be determined. The prevailing proper measure of lost earning capacity is the difference between the amount that the plaintiff was capable of earning before his injury and that which he is capable of earning thereafter. Essentially, the plaintiff must establish the disparity between the market value of his services before and after the injury.

The objective is to place [the victim] in the same economic position as would have been … had the injury not occurred. We seek to accomplish this goal by a formula which … consists of determining what [plaintiff's] annual earning power would have been but for the injury, deducting what it will be thereafter, multiplying the result by [plaintiff's] expectancy, and discounting the product to present value.”

Id. at 572-73, 694 A.2d at 161-62 (internal citations omitted). This would be the formula that would need to be considered in Pam’s case. The necessary proof would need to be provided of Pam’s former earning capacity before her injury and whatever earning capacity she has with her injury. However, Anderson makes clear that the specificity of earning capacity need not be as great as that of lost earnings – as it would be nearly impossible to know for certain what sort of profit Pam might make in the future. See id.

There are many factors to consider when deciding whether to file a personal injury action for medical malpractice. One of the considerations is certainly whether the potential damages award makes it worthwhile to undertake the costs of litigating for the wrong inflicted upon the injured party. Have you ever been involved in a case involving lost earnings or loss of earning capacity in a personal injury case? Was there unemployment involved? This seems likely to be a more frequent question with the current economic realities in our country.

Related Posts:

Every bad outcome or injury does NOT a malpractice case make! Some practical advice.

Should you sue a healthcare provider? Some guidelines to help you decide.

 

Disclaimer: As is the case with all of our blogs and the writings posted on our website, we are not offering legal advice to our readers. This information in our series,Legal Boot Camp, is being presented in the hope that we can provide some education about the law in Maryland and the District of Columbia. The law in the field of personal injury (and particularly in our sub-specialty of medical malpractice) can be complex and confusing at times. Even in these two jurisdictions where we are licensed to practice, the laws and their interpretation by the courts can vary significantly. It is simply our hope that by presenting this series – Legal Boot Camp - that we can provide a better understanding of some legal principles that can come into play when bringing a civil claim or lawsuit for damages as a result of the wrongdoing of others.

For those who do not live in either Maryland or the Washington, D.C., we hope that we can at least raise some issues for you to consider when you speak with an attorney licensed to practice in the state in which you live. Many times the basic concepts of law are similar. We hope that by raising some of these issues applicable to Maryland and the District of Columbia, you will at least have a basic understanding of some terms and principles that may apply to your situation. Don’t be afraid to raise these issues with your attorney. Education – be it in law or medicine – is our main goal.

 

New Blog Series:Legal Boot Camp

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

I’m really pleased to announce a new series we’re starting today. If you’re a reader of our blog, you know that we post numerous times a week on health, safety, medicine and related law topics. That’s what we do in our firm – we represent people who are injured by the negligence of health care providers and those who suffer catastrophic injuries in non-medical settings as well. So, sharing what we believe is some good information about medical, health and safety issues is our mission. We strongly believe that our social networking should be about giving good information, engaging in dialogue about relevant issues – just plain good, old sharing.

For well over a year now, we’ve been blogging away on these topics. No, we’re not doctors; we just happen to deal with medical, safety and health issues in our daily law practice. Our experience, which is a combined one of many decades (roughly over 75 years) of litigating personal injury and our sub-specialty of medical malpractice cases has given us some pretty good insights into how law and medicine intertwine.

What’s new then…?

We’ve said this so many times that I’ve lost any realistic count – an informed patient is one who can better serve their own health care and medical needs. Our “tips and tricks” have been designed to make our readers more educated in health and safety issues so that when they have a medical condition or need medical care or suffer serious injuries along the way, they are hopefully better equipped to get involved in dealing with their issues.

Well, now the time has come, we feel, to make our readers more educated in the laws that potentially affect their lives as well. Love lawyers or hate lawyers (or somewhere in between), there’s no escaping the reality that every one of us lives within a social framework of laws – some created by the common law and some by legislation. We want to offer you, our readers, some insights into what some of the laws are that can possibly affect you in the field of personal injury and medical malpractice. A better educated client is our goal and our new add-on mission. We’ll keep trying to put good, new content out there for you about health, medicine and safety. It’s our bread and butter of social networking. Since we’re lawyers, however, we figured – hey, why not share some information and insights about the law with you as well. You won’t even get a tuition bill in the mail – what a deal!

What will be discussing that might interest you?

First I need to be clear on the scope of what we’ll be discussing. Our lawyers are admitted in Maryland and Washington, D.C. Sure, we occasionally will seek permission from courts in other states to appear before them through a procedure known as pro hac vice – (okay – check out the link if you want – you just had your first mini-law-lesson).Those cases are, of necessity, few and far between. We’re pretty darn busy helping people in our own backyard(s)- D.C. and Maryland. So, with that in mind, we’re going to gear our posts for the Legal Boot Camp to legal issues in Maryland and Washington, D.C. If you don’t live in one of these beautiful places, you might want to have a “read” anyway. Needless to say, laws can vary tremendously from one jurisdiction to another. The legal issues, however, are many times common to all. The answers are often what vary. Central to any civil lawsuit for personal injury or medical malpractice case might be issues such as what is a statute of limitations?, or what is a statute of repose?, or what’s the difference between them?, or what damages are recoverable in a personal injury lawsuit, or what is meant by “the standard of care” in a medical malpractice case? or what really is a common law marriage? and on and on and on.

The Disclaimer

Yeah, you had to know one was coming. Hey, we are lawyers!

If you didn’t know, we can’t offer you legal advice in a blog, tweet or Facebook post. We can, however, share some of our knowledge of issues that just might impact you. No, just by reading our posts we do not have an attorney-client relationship. OK…got it? I suspect you do, so let’s move on.

Our “Legal Boot Camp” Format

For those of you who haven’t been to law school, let me start by sharing the typical way a class in law school would go – at least when I was there a few years ago. Yes, we had real, electric lights way back then and were not limited to studying by the glow of a fireplace or candle.

The assignments in whatever class you were taking were pretty much the same. Read a case or two (in torts, contracts, corporations, etc.). When you came to class, be prepared to “present” the following: (a) the facts of the case, (b) the issues of the case and (c) the holding(s) of the case. From there the discussion would take off. Well, since this style of legal education seems to have worked for quite a few of my fellow lawyers, that’s what we’re typically going to do.

The facts….and only the facts…

We’ll be giving you a fact pattern so you can see the issue and the law in a factual context. Politicians now like to give you a story first for their message. Why not us? The facts for our posts will sometimes be from cases we’ve handled or are currently working on (all identifying information will be deleted or modified for a host of reasons). Sometimes we’ll make our fact pattern as a composite from various cases we’ve handled. We hope you’ll find that they’re done in such a way as to make the issues and the legal holdings more understandable.

So, hand in your class attendance card; let’s have some fun!

We’re starting off this series with a post by Sarah Keogh, which I’ll post right after I hit “publish” on this announcement piece. Sarah tells the story of Pam, who was a swimming instructor before she was injured during a simple surgical procedure at a local Maryland hospital. What rights and claims does Pam have for her lost wages – even if she wasn’t making a whole lot, if anything – at the time of her surgery? Does she have any or is she flat out of luck for the rest of her days? Read the facts, figure out the “issue,” and learn some law.

Before you head over to your first class on Maryland law, here’s a tip. If you want to follow the course and would like easy access to our lessons, you can go to our search bar on the main blog page and just type in “Legal Boot Camp.” We’re also going to tag our Twitter posts in this series with the designation #LBC. Ok…now hand in your card and get your free legal education.

Fetal Pain and Suffering: New Nebraska Abortion Law Sparks Debate – When Does a Fetus Feel Pain?

Saturday, April 17th, 2010

An online article posted yesterday in NewScientist raises some interesting issues that will no doubt be the subject of much debate in days, months and years to come – does a fetus feel pain and if so, when? The true focus of this article was the recent (April 13, 2010) passage of new legislation in Nebraska, which essentially prohibits abortions after 20 weeks.  Ostensibly, Nebraska has become the first state to ban abortions on the basis that fetuses feel and appreciate pain.

The law, according to a report in LifeSiteNews.com, goes into effect on October 15, 2010, and has, at a minimum, the following legal implications:

Abortionists who break the law would face a Class IV felony charge, which carries a penalty of a five year maximum prison sentence, $10,000 fine, or both. Women who obtain abortions of their unborn children would face no criminal penalties.

The bill would allow women and even the fathers of aborted unborn children to sue and seek damages from abortionists who violate the law.    

I say “at a minimum” since there are other civil law implications arising from  the rationale behind this legislation. One of those issues often litigated throughout the various courts of the United States is a parent’s right to sue for conscious pain and suffering for fatal or non-fatal injuries to a fetus.  That analysis is beyond the scope of this blog. What is of present importance is the so-called ‘science’ behind this legislation and the response of the scientific community that may well have far-reaching implications in the field of civil litigation.

Before engaging in this discussion, note well: it is not my intention (or desire) to become embroiled in the abortion issue.  That is not what we do in our firm.  It is the state of  science that intrigues me in terms of how that may have relevance to what we do – litigate civil cases involving matters such as fetal death in utero or death or injuries sustained by fetuses due to the negligence of third persons (e.g. medical malpractice, catastrophic automobile accidents and the like).

Apparently, the ‘scientific basis’ for this Nebraska legislation is the research of Kanwaljeet “Sunny” Anand, a professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.  Dr. Anand testified in 2004 on the federal partial birth abortion ban.  He provided his opinion testimony that after 20 weeks gestation, an unborn child would experience “severe and excruciating pain” from an abortion.

Dr. Anand’s opinions are not without numerous critics.  What is significant, however, is that even many scientists, who challenge Dr. Anand’s opinions that 20 weeks of gestation is the point at which a fetus can feel and appreciate pain, do accept the proposition that there is a point in the life of fetus where they can and do appreciate pain and suffering.

Dr. Mark A. Rosen, the Director of Obstetrical Anesthesia at UCSF’s Fetal Treatment Center, in 2005 co-authored an article in JAMA (abstract) that some refer to as the ‘seminal review on fetal pain.’

One of the opinions expressed in that paper defines what is at the center of this discussion – what is meant by ‘perception of pain’?

Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by non-painful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing.

In the NewScientist posting, Dr. Rosen provided rebuttal statements to the premise inherent in the Nebraska legislation that fetal pain occurs at 20 weeks of gestation.

Dr. Rosen states, “The first brain pathways associated with pain perception “are not complete before approximately 29 weeks of gestation”, so although fetuses develop brain wiring from about 23 weeks onwards, the connections are not there to enable them to experience pain.”

Whether it is at 20 weeks or 29 weeks, one common principle exists – according to a number of scientists, there is a point prior to birth that a fetus can appreciate pain from a medical-scientific standpoint – the ‘wiring’ is in place. If this is true scientifically, how does this affect the right of recovery by a parent or the estate of an injured fetus in those jurisdictions permitting conscious pain and suffering damages for injuries to a fetus?

For instance, if a fetus is at 35 weeks gestation and by all other accounts is totally viable with ‘the wiring in place,’ does that fetus and/or the parents have a claim for conscious pain and suffering should injury to the fetus occur?

Does any jurisdiction recognize the right of a fetus to recover for injuries sustained in utero?  Absolutely – it just depends which jursidiction(s) you are considering.  For example, the District of Columbia, in 1946, was the first jurisdiction to recognize the right of a fetus to bring a separate cause of action (Bonbrest v. Kotz). This was an action for damages being brought on behalf of a fetus allegedly injured ‘in the process of being removed from its mother’s womb.’ “Under the civil law and the law of property, a child en ventre sa mère is regarded as a human being from the moment of conception.”

In 1984, the D.C. Court of Appeals, relying in large part on Bonbrest, stated:

Although this court has never considered this question, we note that every jurisdiction in the United States has followed Bonbrest in recognizing a cause of action for prenatal injury, at least when the injury is to a viable infant later born alive.

Note the key conditions: “…when the injury is to a viable infant later born alive.

This posting is already perhaps too long – this topic is multi-faceted and more the subject of a treatise, white paper or a law review article, not a blog.  What is apparent (at least to me) is that this new Nebraska legislation will undoubtedly rekindle the fires of fascinating litigation about fetal rights, fetal and parental causes of action and fetal pain and suffering claims. Stay tuned – there will undoubtedly be much more to come.