I was diagnosed in 2007 with MS based on s/s and an MRI that was done with no contrast. I was put on daily injections at that time, but sought a new doctore because my neurologist was not very proactive. I went to the new doctoor who is one of castle connolly's top ten. This doctor is also the head of a Multiple Sclerosis center and found the following: 1. He immediately ordered numerous MRI's with contrast and could not believe that the first doctor did not order contrast. After reviewing the MRI's just done and in 2007, he noted that the same inflamation was present that was there in 2007. He immediately ordered a course of Solumedrol IV for 5 days. 2. I was misdiagnosed. I did not have the relapsing-remitting form of MS, I had secondary-progressive. The four years of injections was immediately stopped and Tysabri was ordered. Because of this misdianosis, my MS progressed much more rapidly. I am looking to see if this is a malpractice case and if so, I need a lawyer that can represent my interests of giving up four years of my life. I need a contingency attorney.

Thank you

government/intellectual property

I am a marketing exec working for an agency that developed a health awareness brand (intellectual property) for the city government. Looking to privatize the brand by engineering a deal for a private firm to buy the brand and develop it by creating a commercial business model to maximize the profit potential of said brand. Such a deal would potentially involve a flat fee and/or the private firm committing to an agreed upon percentage for x years to be recommitted to city programs.

question 1: is the city government bound from the sale of a brand or profiting at all from intellectual property? Is it not the same as the city of Denver selling the naming rights of Mile High Stadium to Invesco?

Question 2: Is the city prohibited from entering any contract where they are accepting a percentage of a private firm's revenues in context of the overarching arrangement where they have released the brand ownership? In other words would there be some sort of inside training / conflict of interest issue? If so would it typically be a scenario that is resolved by a bid requirement? In other words could the city put the brand development ownership out for Bid with consideration of who would offer the best proposal for long term development?