Remove Discovery Remove Healthcare Remove Precedent
article thumbnail

AI in Healthcare: UnitedHealthcare’s Controversy and the Tragic Death of CEO

Complex Discovery

Editor’s Note: The tragic death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson amid ongoing AI-related controversy highlights pressing concerns that extend far beyond healthcare. The model allegedly operated with a 90% error rate, challenging decisions made by healthcare providers and ignoring patient-specific needs.

article thumbnail

Is a Web Bug a Wiretap?

E-Discovery LLC

The information at issue in Vita did not include private patient records or messages to nurses, doctors, or other healthcare providers. Reviewing Massachusetts case law, the court found no precedent for Ms. It also focused on the word “any” that preceded the word “communication.” Vita’s more expansive definition. at *21, 23.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Pentagon Introduces AI Rapid Capabilities Cell to Propel Defense AI Adoption

Complex Discovery

This task force meticulously evaluated AI workflows and pinpointed 15 critical use cases, ranging from warfighting functionssuch as command and control, decision support, and logisticsto enterprise management areas like financial and healthcare information management. ’s competitive edge globally.

article thumbnail

AI Regulation and National Security: Implications for Corporate Compliance

Complex Discovery

On the other hand, AI advancements in fields like healthcare and national security are seen as positive developments, highlighting the dual-sided nature of AI regulation. For legal departments and corporate teams, this sets a precedent for developing adaptive strategies that align with both current regulations and potential policy changes.

article thumbnail

Admissibility of Internet Searches About Terminating Pregnancy

E-Discovery LLC

Appellant claims that any probative value was substantially outweighed by the potential for evidence of use or consideration of abortion services to inflame strong prejudice in jurors due to the “divisive and emotional” nature of debates around reproductive healthcare services, which include abortion.