Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Editor's note: Last month, the authors began discussion of a trend in New Jersey case law that, over the past several decades, has been moving that state toward the expansion of hospital liability through the continuous erosion of the statutorily imposed $250,000 charitable immunity cap. They continue their analysis of this trend and its consequences herein.
In Basil v. Wolf, 193 N.J. 38 (2007), New Jersey's Supreme Court rejected a claim for imputed liability against an insurer that had hired a physician to perform an independent medical examination. In doing so, however, the court explained that apparent authority imposes liability on the principal “not as the result of the reality of a contractual relationship but rather because of the actions of a principal or employer in somehow misleading the public into believing that the relationship or the authority exists.” The key question is “whether the principal has by his voluntary act placed the agent in such a situation that a person of ordinary prudence, conversant with business usages and the nature of the particular business, is justified in presuming that such agent has the authority to perform the particular act in question.” Thus, in the context of a hospital and its independent contractor physicians, there would be apparent authority “in those cases where it can be shown that a hospital, by its actions, has held out a particular physician as its agent and/or employee and that a patient has accepted treatment from that physician in the reasonable belief that it is being rendered in behalf of the hospital.” Basil, 193 N.J. at 67 (citations omitted).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.