Plaintiff's release committing not to seek execution on defendant physician's assets, but still allowing plaintiff to seek recovery from that physician's MCARE coverage, did not operate as a release of claims against the physician's employer. The court reversed the court below.
April 03, 2009 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Tindall v. Friedman, PICS Case No. 09-0540 (Pa. Super. March 24, 2009) Bowes, J.; Shogan, J, concurring and dissenting (48 pages).
Plaintiff’s release committing not to seek execution on defendant physician’s assets, but still allowing plaintiff to seek recovery from that physician’s MCARE coverage, did not operate as a release of claims against the physician’s employer. The court reversed the court below.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
AMENDED NOTICE OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE VACANCIES DISTRICT OF UTAH The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit seeks applicati...
The New Jersey State Commission of Investigation (SCI) is seeking an experienced and visionary leader to serve as its next Executive Directo...
We are a boutique firm specializing the area of real estate law and handling both litigation and transactional matters. We are seeking an as...
