This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
provided the Defense with a new type of ammunition that they have not hesitated to use. We must be equally diligent in educating ourselves and fortifying our claims so that they are deemed by the courts as trial worthy and not unsubstantiated refuse to be casually dismissed.


In What Types of Cases Will We Most Likely Run Into This Issue?


As Plaintiffs attorneys there are four types of claims where


we can anticipate the emergence of this pleading issue: 1. Medical Malpractice Claims 2. Product Liability Claims 3. Loss of Consortium Claims 4. Claims for Wrongful Termination Under the False Claims Act


For those who regularly litigate in Federal Court, you are probably already well versed in the application of this new pleading standard. However, for those of you who have not faced a 12(b)(6) motion since May of 2009, or for those just beginning to engage in more regular appearances in the Federal system, the following will provide you with a fundamental understanding of what you can expect to see and a few basic strategies to combat these attacks and preserve your client’s claims.


Medical Malpractice Claims Medical malpractice claims tend to be state claims and


therefore, heard in state courts. However, as we know, there are occasions where we end up in federal court (usually due to diversity jurisdiction). Because we tend to think of these claims as substantively state law driven, we tend to forget that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are still applied. As such, we can now expect a pleading standard beyond that of just “notice” in our medical malpractice claims that end up in federal courts. Te most foreseeable danger that we will encounter


in these federally filed medical malpractice claims will be dismissal due to our bad-habit use of template complaints. While this may suffice in state court, this will surely result in the dismissal of the claim when filed in the corresponding federal jurisdiction. Specific factual details supporting each element of the medical malpractice claim are now mandated to survive a 12(b)(6) motion. Gone are the days of filing while waiting for records, or picking and choosing what we reveal to the Defendant during various points of discovery. If we want to survive in Federal court, all of our cards must be on the table.


One of the severe shortcomings of this new pleading


standard is that alleging intentional torts will become increasingly difficult due to the inaccessibility of information


Trial Reporter / Winter 2010 11


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68