Model Answer Part IV: Conclusions

Here is a copy of a Model Answer that I posted for students enrolled in Medical Law and Ethics. This course is being taught fully online.

Click here to view the fictional fact pattern.

Memo:

To: Christine H. Williams,President/CEO
“Christine H. Williams Honorary Hospital and Health Care Center for Academic and Medical Excellence”

Re: Medical Legal  Claim

We have reviewed the complaint and determined that according to this communication, conclude that there does appear to be a basis for one or more legal causes of action against this hospital and personnel.

Possible Tort Claims Part I – click here

Contract claims Part II:  click here

Criminal claims Part III: click here

Plaintiff: The patient is the sole plaintiff.


 

[Note: Realistically, the third party insurer would end up as the plaintiff, under the theory of subrogation: insurance will typically pay out the claim to the hospital for the insured, then, according to the insurance contract with the insured, will take over the right to litigate the case and receive compensation.]

Defendant(s): The attending physician(s) and health care worker(s) could possibly be named, as direct defendants and also as agents of the hospital, plus the hospital (as the principal) and perhaps supervising personnel (under the theory of respondeat superior).

Jurisdiction:

Common law claims (including torts and contracts), plus criminal matters (if relevant) are usually tried in state court. [If federal regulations or legislation were involved, federal court would be more likely.]

That about covers it. Nice work everyone!


Share in top social networks!
Posted in Law /

Model Answer Part III: Criminal Claims

Here is a copy of what I posted for students enrolled in Medical Law and Ethics. Click here to view the fictional fact pattern.

Memo:

To: Christine H. Williams,President/CEO
“Christine H. Williams Honorary Hospital and Health Care Center for Academic and Medical Excellence”



Re: Medical Legal  Claim

We have reviewed the complaint and determined that according to this communication, conclude that there does appear to be a basis for one or more legal causes of action against this hospital and personnel.

Possible Tort Claims Part I – click here

Contract claims Part II:  click here

Criminal:

While battery is a crime in this state, the required intent appears lacking; neither premeditation (1 st degree homicide), intent (homicide second degree), nor reckless indifference (vehicular/manslaughter) appear likely in this case. The level of intent, if any, does not rise higher than (alleged) negligence.

The sole exception is for the other patient, who may have been reckless in running her against the wall, and could potentially be brought for misdemeanor charges.

Come back tomorrow for the riveting conclusion: parties and jurisdictional issues!

Share in top social networks!

Model Answer Part II: Contract claims

 Memo: Continued. View fact pattern here, Answer Part One here

To: Christine H. Williams,President/CEO
“Christine H. Williams Honorary Hospital and Health Care Center for Academic and Medical Excellence”

Re: Medical Legal Claim:

We have reviewed the complaint and determined that according to this communication, there does appear to be a basis for one or more legal causes of action against this hospital and personnel.

Possible Tort Claims (see part one)

Breach of Contract:

A claim for breach of contract appears likely.

A contract requires offer, acceptance and consideration.

In this case, the offer and acceptance were initially oral, and followed up with written instruments and signature, from hospital and patient respectively, with consideration provided by third party payor.

The service was described as “removal of 7 warts, exterior right ankle”. Since the warts were not in fact removed from her right ankle, there appears to be a breach. Remedial damages and/or injunctive relief (i. e. the hospital arranging for wart removal, free of additional fees) appears likely.

[Stretching the point, the plaintiff could possibly argue that the hospital is further in breach for failure to insure patient safety from other running patients, under the theory of implied warrantee -- again, damages are unlikely since all she suffered was a bruise on one arm.]


Come back tomorrow for Part three: Criminal claims!

Share in top social networks!