Vendor Liability for the Sale of Alcohol to an Underage Person: The Untoward Consequences of Estate of Mullis v. Monroe Oil Co.

This article contends that Defendants clearly had a duty to the people who travel on public highways not to serve alcohol to an underage individual. Therefore, N.C. GEN. STAT. section 18B-302, which prohibits the sale of alcohol to underage persons, should be regarded as a public safety statue, violation of which constitutes negligence per se. It further argues that Defendants should have recognized that Mullis and others might be injured by their conduct. The supreme court merely misinterpreted the element of duty required to maintain a common law negligence action and failed to look at the evidence and circumstances surrounding the sales to Blount as a whole when it determined liability under a theory of common law negligence

Vendor Liability for the Sale of Alcohol to an Underage Person: The Untoward Consequences of Estate of Mullis v. Monroe Oil Co.

This article contends that Defendants clearly had a duty to the people who travel on public highways not to serve alcohol to an underage individual. Therefore, N.C. GEN. STAT. section 18B-302, which prohibits the sale of alcohol to underage persons, should be regarded as a public safety statue, violation of which constitutes negligence per se. It further argues that Defendants should have recognized that Mullis and others might be injured by their conduct. The supreme court merely misinterpreted the element of duty required to maintain a common law negligence action and failed to look at the evidence and circumstances surrounding the sales to Blount as a whole when it determined liability under a theory of common law negligence

A Call to Congress to Amend ERISA Preemption of HMO Medical Malpractice Claims: The Dissatisfactory Distinction between Quality and Quantity of Care

This Comment begins with an overview of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the preemption clause found therein. Section III explains the distinction between quality and quantity of care, the test many courts have relied on to determine whether ERISA preempts a medical malpractice claim. Section IV examines state common law theories of liability which are asserted against managed care organizations, specifically claims of direct and vicarious liability. Section V addresses the HMO\u27s role in medical decision making, and Section VI describes recent legislation regarding ERISA and HMO liability. This Comment contends that the more active role an HMO has regarding the quality of care they offer, the more they should be subject to vicarious and direct liability for negligent provision of care under state law. It further argues that the distinction between quantity of care or benefit determinations and decisions about the quality of care is unclear among the courts, and Congress must step in to amend ERISA and resolve the confusion

Comparison of the Sensitivities and Viral Load Values of the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Version 1.0 and 1.5 Tests

This study compared the sensitivity and viral load values of the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR microwell version 1.0, microwell version 1.5, and COBAS version 1.5 tests. Based on the percentage of positive replicates, the microwell version 1.5 and COBAS version 1.5 tests are more sensitive than the microwell version 1.0 test. Viral load values obtained with the COBAS version 1.5 test are lower than those obtained with either the microwell version 1.0 or microwell version 1.5 test

Assessment of Agreement between the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test Versions 1.0 and 1.5

The agreement of the microwell plate AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.0 (MWP 1.0), the microwell plate AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.5 (MWP 1.5), and the COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.5 (COBAS 1.5) tests was evaluated using clinical specimens and well-characterized control material. Two hundred patient plasma specimens and a panel of known human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) subtypes were tested. All data were log(10) transformed prior to analysis. The 95% limits of agreement for the three tests at the average of 3.66 log(10) copies/ml were ± 0.28 log(10), ± 0.34 log(10), and ± 0.34 log(10) copies/ml for MWP 1.0-MWP 1.5, MWP 1.0-COBAS 1.5, and MWP 1.5-COBAS 1.5, respectively. Ten specimens (6.1%) had differences exceeding the limits of agreement for the MWP 1.0 and MWP 1.5 tests. Correlation coefficients among the three tests were high (r ≥ 0.96). The viral-load values obtained with the MWP 1.0 test were only 2.1% higher on average than those measured with the MWP 1.5 test and 1.6% higher than those seen with the COBAS 1.5 test. The MWP 1.5 test values were 0.8% higher than the COBAS 1.5 test values. Overall, there was less agreement among the different tests for viral-load values near the lower limit of quantification. The MWP 1.0 test underquantified subtypes A, E, F, G, and H by 1.0 to 2.0 log(10) copies/ml; this problem was not observed with the MWP 1.5 test. The close agreement among the results obtained with the different test versions and formats suggests that it is not necessary to reestablish a baseline viral load when changing AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR tests, unless the patient is known to be infected with a non-B subtype