A married same sex couple from California sought a divorce here in Maryland. Prince George's County Judge A. Michael Chapdelaine denied the divorce petition because the marriage was “not valid” and “contrary to the public policy of Maryland.”

Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver that can be caused by numerous viruses, diseases or environmental conditions that cause the liver to become inflamed. When hepatitis occurs in infancy, this is called “neonatal hepatitis”.

Twenty percent of neonatal hepatitis is caused by a virus that was passed from mother to child either before birth or shortly thereafter. In eighty percent of the cases of hepatitis medical experts are unable to determine the exact cause; however, it is suspected that these cases were also caused from some type of viral infection.

Viruses that Cause Neonatal Hepatitis

“Cytomegalovirus” or “CMV” is one of the viruses that are responsible for causing neonatal hepatitis in some infants and is the most common type of virus that is passed on from a mother to their unborn child during pregnancy. Other viruses that can be passed from mother to child during pregnancy causing neonatal hepatitis include, measles (rubella), and hepatitis viruses including A, B, or C.

In many cases of hepatitis when the exact cause is undetermined, a biopsy of the liver will be done. This biopsy will often show the presence of “giant cell hepatitis” which is characterized by four of five normal cells of the liver combining to form one cell that is still functional, however, it does not perform as well as the normal smaller liver cells.

Symptoms and Complications that can occur with Neonatal Hepatitis

The primary symptom that occurs when an infant has neonatal hepatitis is jaundice which causes the skin and the whites of the eyes to become a yellowish color. This condition is caused by the bile ducts of the liver becoming inflamed or swollen blocking the flow of bile to the digestive system causing it to become backed up and enter the blood stream.

For this reason, neonatal hepatitis causes some of the same or very similar symptoms to another liver disease that is primarily seen in infants called “biliary atresia”, however, the spleen will become enlarged in neonatal hepatitis but typically will not with biliaty atresia. This symptom of an enlarged spleen and laboratory tests including a liver biopsy is what is used to determine and confirm a diagnosis of these diseases as opposed to biliary atresia.

Infants with neonatal hepatitis will also have a delay in growth and will not gain weight at a normal rate due to the fact that they are unable to absorb the necessary vitamins and nutrients needed for growth.

Most infants will recover from giant cell hepatitis and may have little or no scar tissue develop on the liver; however, about twenty percent of infants who have giant cell hepatitis will develop liver disease that is chronic causing permanent damage to the liver by the formation of scar tissue and will require a liver transplant at some point in time. In cases where the neonatal hepatitis was caused by the viruses cytomegalovirus or rubella, there is the potential for an infection to occur in the brain that may cause cerebral palsy or mental retardation.

Treatment for Neonatal Hepatitis

In infants who have developed neonatal hepatitis due to the hepatitis A virus, this condition will typically clear on its own within a six month period of time, however, when the hepatitis is caused by the hepatitis B and C viruses, this will likely cause liver disease that is chronic resulting in cirrhosis that will require a liver transplant in the future.

Infants will typically be prescribed vitamin supplements and phenobarbital that will increase the production of bile within the liver as well as a special formula that contains fats that are easier to digest.

There is the potential for infants who have developed neonatal hepatitis due to the A, B, or C hepatitis viruses, rubella, or CMV to pass this virus to others. It is essential for pregnant women to avoid coming into contact with an infant who is infected as there is the potential that they may pass this virus to there unborn child.

About the Author: Anne Ahira is an established entrepreneur and successful coach in her country of Indonesia. Her success story has been published in many nationwide publications in Indonesia.

Making a lucrative income online is a challenging endeavor, but by getting the *right* information, it is an endeavor that you can succeed at!

If you want to LEARN how to make a LUCRATIVE income online from Professional Marketers you can TRUST, below is the *only* product Anne Ahira recommends: http://www.AnneAhiraRecommends.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Anne_Ahira
http://EzineArticles.com/?Neonatal-Hepatitis&id=4900744

Post settlement funding is a method to access one’s verdict cash before the distribution of the compensation cash. Post settlement funding companies provide money to a plaintiff, which will be somewhat lesser than the verdict amount.

Post settlement funding provides non-recourse funding for attorneys and/or their clients based on the settled case. The funding company buys the fee at a discount and makes their money from this discount when the fee is paid a few months later. Post settlement funding procedure is simple and fast compared to Pre Settlement Funding procedure, in which advance funds are provided anticipating the verdict to be in favor of the client.

Post settlement funding is mainly done for fees that will be collected in less than 12 months, but many companies provide post settlement funding for a much longer period, even for two or more years. Unlike pre settlement funding, post settlement funding does not affect settlement incentives, since the settlement is already final. Most post settlement funding companies provide funds in all compensation cases. In post settlement funding the money can be spent at the plaintiff’s own will, which is almost impossible in pre settlement funding, where companies will restrict items on which money can be spent.

Post settlement funding is useful to attorneys who will get their fee soon after the verdict, minimizing the time lag and attorney-client issues, and also for clients who need money in emergency to overcome their debt or for medical treatment. Unlike pre settlement funding, which is still illegal in some states like Ohio, post settlement funding is legal and can be carried out in any state. Funding companies are not keen on post settlement funding because of the low commission they earn from this settlement as a result of reduction in risk factor, compared to pre settlement funding.

Settlement Funding provides detailed information on Lawsuit Settlement Funding, Life Settlement Funding, Post Settlement Funding, Pre Settlement Funding and more. Settlement Funding is affiliated with Burn Injury Settlements.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Peter_Emerson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Post-Settlement-Funding&id=268994

The plaintiff (I know, you call them claimants in comp; it just sounds weird to me) hurt his knee on the job. While attending "work hardening" therapy, the driver of a car in the parking lot put her car in reverse, backed into the plaintiff, resulting in an injury to his other knee for which he also sought workers' compensation benefits.

I can see this from both sides. At first glance, I think it seems pretty attenuated to argue a causal relationship just because you coincidentally got injured going to lunch from therapy. There has to be some difference between causation in fact and proximate causation. This would seem to jive with the Maryland high court's holding in Mackin v. Harris. In that case, the court explained that for every injury, there are innumerable acts whose absence would have prevented the harm. It is the butterfly effect. Going back to Palsgraf, that is not and cannot be how proximate cause is defined. I'm a plaintiffs' lawyer and even I get this.

• In Morse v. Davis, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a $1.25 million verdict (actually $2.5 million reduced by the cap) in a colon cancer misdiagnosis case. Defendant made two arguments we see in various permutations in our practice. The first is the whole idea of whether an expert can speak directly or indirectly to the ultimate issue of fact for the jury. The second is the extent to which an expert can make credibility determinations about another witness. I think this is often an issue not worth fighting for plaintiffs' lawyers when the defense is calling a plaintiff a liar. Rich Friedman's book Polarizing the Case is an illuminating read on whether it is a good thing to make the trial about whether your client is a liar.
• In Horak v. Building Services Industrial Sales Company, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin found that invoices produced by the company's lawyer, that documented the sale of products that contained asbestos, are admissible even without an authenticating witness under the ancient-documents exception to the hearsay rule. Given the value of asbestos cases, that is a pretty valuable invoice to find.
• In Saeco Electric & Utility, Ltd.v. Gonzales, a Texas appellate court reversed a $5 million verdict, finding that the case should have been submitted to the jury as a premises defect action, as opposed to straight negligence. The dissenting opinion found that because the utility was not in control of the premises at the time of plaintiff's injury, but was responsible for creating the dangerous condition that caused injury, this is not just a premises liability case. I think it is odd that in some states the dissenting opinion is filed in a separate opinion. You can find more details on the jury's verdict and the plaintiff's awful injury here.
• Riegel v. Medtronic claims another victim, this time a man alleging that a Medtronic drug pump and spine catheter caused him to become a paraplegic. Sadly, no one is talking about the Medical Device Safety Act to remedy this injustice anymore.

You can find the four appellate opinions you should read from last week here.