Oregon Law Review : Vol. 87 No. 2, p.671-712 : Opening Medical Settlements for the Public Good: Why Medical Cases Justify Secrecy in Settlement

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorMeisen-Vehrs, Hannah V.
dc.date.accessioned2009-05-19T17:22:20Z
dc.date.available2009-05-19T17:22:20Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.description42 p.en
dc.description.abstractPart I of this Comment summarizes the arguments for and against secrecy in settlements, and the particular benefits of secrecy in medical cases. Part II provides an overview of the Dalkon Shield cases and focuses primarily on the competing interests of the claimants, the defendants, and the public. Part III explains how settled cases can avoid public disclosure in states without sunshine laws and how sunshine laws alter these procedures. It also examines some important components of four states’ sunshine laws and then applies those principles to the Dalkon Shield example to show how these laws fail to protect privacy in medical cases. Finally, Part IV proposes three alternative methods of protecting the public from harm while minimizing the effect on claimants with legitimate privacy interests.en
dc.identifier.issn0196-2043
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1794/9178
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherUniversity of Oregon School of Lawen
dc.titleOregon Law Review : Vol. 87 No. 2, p.671-712 : Opening Medical Settlements for the Public Good: Why Medical Cases Justify Secrecy in Settlementen
dc.title.alternativeOpening Medical Settlements for the Public Good: Why Medical Cases Justify Secrecy in Settlementen
dc.typeArticleen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Meisen-Vehrs.pdf
Size:
180.16 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.8 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Oregon Law Review : Vol. 87, No. 2 (2008)