Wednesday, June 14, 2006
...or so says one judge, noted at Blog 702 (who also has the TRO itself, which is fairly cursory). The short version is that a neurologist testified for the plaintiff in a med mal case which was later settled. The AANS later received a complaint from the defendants relating to his testimony, and it indicated that it intended to sanction him for violating the group's expert witness guidelines. The court has enjoined those sanctions pending the outcome of the case.
This is a rather astonishing result at least on its face, though of course who knows what the underlying facts really show.
[P.S. Hi, I'm back from Minnesota. The weather was unpleasant but the company nice. We returned to find that a bear had torn down and destroyed our bird feeder!]