Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Confidential physician peer reviews may be disclosed to plaintiffs in federal discrimination and antitrust cases in three federal circuits, even though all 50 states and the District of Columbia recognize a privilege against disclosure of the performance ratings. This growing federal-state divergence will make federal courts more attractive to plaintiffs filing civil rights suits involving doctors, attorneys say. At the same time, it may have a chilling effect on peer review participant candor and on the ability of health care facilities to recruit peer review team members.
When a patient receives substandard care from a health care provider practicing telemedicine from a different state, the question is presented: Which state has jurisdiction over the transactions? The answer to this will depend on the two (or more) states involved and the circumstances of the case, but in the civil context it will generally come down to the usual questions of 'minimum contacts,' the parties' expectations, etc. What happens, though, when local prosecutors wants to hold a practitioner in another state criminally liable for practicing medicine within their state?
Features
Who's doing what; who's going where.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
The latest happenings in this all-important area.
'Words alone cannot explain the trauma of watching your only child's health deteriorate to such a degree before your eyes,' Theresa Cedillo of Arizona wrotes in an e-mail to Legal Times, a sister publication of this newsletter. On June 11, the case of Michelle Cedillo, Theresa's daughter, will go before an extraordinary tribunal assembled by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Its goal is to determine, for the first time in a judicial proceeding, whether the combination of certain vaccines and thimerosal, a mercury-based vaccine preservative, can cause autism ' a set of disorders that is gaining attention as more and more children are diagnosed; as many as one in 150 children born in the United States. The government has long denied such a link exists.
Features
The trend among states to create a single legally recognizable form for advance directives and for the appointment of the health care guardian to make decisions is certainly a step in the right direction for many patients. Often, individuals do not have an advance directive, and health-care providers have the sometimes challenging task of determining who is the most appropriate decision-maker from among the patient's family or friends. Additionally, when an individual is in a life-threatening situation or becomes terminally ill and unable to communicate his or her own preferences, health-care providers, family and friends must decide whether or not to engage in life sustaining acts that may have been contrary to the individual's wishes. Completion of an advance directive may eliminate some of the confusion and stress that families and health-care providers face when trying to make these difficult health-care decisions.
The tort system is designed to determine negligent actions and to make harmed individuals whole. A fair system would be predictable and would compensate every injured patient in an equitable way for lost earnings, medical expenses, and suffering. It would also impact all negligent health care providers in a similar way, in spite of the identity of the injured patient. Unfortunately, our current system is an inadequate means for achieving these goals.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.