Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When Is Your Doctor Not Your Doctor?
Modern understanding of medical malpractice is based upon the presence of a physician-patient relationship. This specific relationship gives rise to a special duty on the part of the physician, the breach of which is one of the requirements for finding professional negligence. See, e.g., Wilson v. Athens-Limestone Hospital, 894 So.2d 630, 633 (Ala. 2004); Conley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 591, 597 (Tenn. 2004); Bessenyei v. Raiti, 266 F. Supp. 2d 408, 411 (D. Md. 2003). Although this consensual relationship is often discussed and thought of in terms of an express contract ' that the relationship is created when professional medical services are 'offered' voluntarily and those services are 'accepted' voluntarily by another ' most courts have held that the creation of the relationship need not satisfy the formalities of a contract. Stutes v. Samuelson, 180 S.W.3d 750, 753 (Tex. Ct. App. 2005). The creation of this relationship may be either express or implied. 'The implied contractual relationship may arise from facts and circumstances indicating there was a mutual intention to contract. The consent of the physician, whether express or implied, is absolutely necessary to the creation of the relationship.' Id.
'No Breach of Duty'
Given this understanding of the physician-patient relationship, it is unsurprising that many defendants in medical malpractice lawsuits assume the presence of the relationship ' and therefore a duty ' and begin defense of their case by asserting that there was no breach of this duty. In the past, when disputes over this duty arose, they came about in a fairly familiar medical malpractice context. For instance, a plaintiff patient would often assert that he and a defendant consulting or screening physician had entered into a consensual physician-patient relationship.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?