853 research outputs found
Intra-articular hyaluronans: the treatment of knee pain in osteoarthritis
China - Shanghai, Ballet dancerColorVolume 63, Page
Intra-articular hyaluronans: the treatment of knee pain in osteoarthritis
The etiology of pain in osteoarthritis is multifactoral, and includes mechanical and inflammatory processes. Intra-articular injections of hyaluronans (HAs) are indicated when non-pharmacological and simple analgesics have failed to relieve symptoms. The HAs appear to reduce pain by restoring both mechanical and biomechanical homeostasis in the joint. There are five FDA-approved injectable preparations of HAs: Hyalgan®, Synvisc®, Supartz®, Orthovisc® and Euflexxa®. They all appear to relieve pain from 4 to 14 weeks after injection and may have disease-modification properties. Although several randomized controlled trials have established the efficacy of this treatment modality, additional high quality randomized control studies with appropriate comparison are still required to clearly define the role of intra-articular HA injections in the treatment of osteoarthritis
Cleaning up Lake River
A casebook favorite for exploring the liquidated damage-penalty clause distinction is Lake River v. Carborundum in which a minimum quantity clause was found to be a penalty clause. In this paper I argue that the case was framed improperly. The contract was for the provision of a service—setting aside capacity—which was valuable to the buyer and costly to provide for the seller. The primary purpose of the minimum quantity clause was the pricing of that service. The case raises a significant damages issue: if there is an anticipatory repudiation of a contract that is take-or-pay or has a stipulated damage clause, should the promisee's ability to mitigate be taken into account when reckoning damages
Desperately Seeking Consideration: The Unfortunate Impact of U.C.C. Section 2-306 on Contract Interpretation
In Section 2-306, the Uniform Commercial Code\u27s drafters intended to assure that two classes of agreements would be enforceable, even though they might appear on their face to be illusory. Variable quantity (output and requirements) contracts were buttressed by reading in a good faith standard (§ 2-306(1)) and exclusive dealing contracts were made enforceable by reading in a best efforts standard (§ 2-306(2)). This was a big mistake. In this paper I show how these two fixes create problems for interpreting contracts. I use two well-known cases, Feld v. Henry S. Levy & Sons, Inc. and Wood v. Lucy, to illustrate the point
Desperately Seeking Consideration: The Unfortunate Impact of U.C.C. Section 2-306 on Contract Interpretation
In Section 2-306, the Uniform Commercial Code\u27s drafters intended to assure that two classes of agreements would be enforceable, even though they might appear on their face to be illusory. Variable quantity (output and requirements) contracts were buttressed by reading in a good faith standard (§ 2-306(1)) and exclusive dealing contracts were made enforceable by reading in a best efforts standard (§ 2-306(2)). This was a big mistake. In this paper I show how these two fixes create problems for interpreting contracts. I use two well-known cases, Feld v. Henry S. Levy & Sons, Inc. and Wood v. Lucy, to illustrate the point
- …