Final Cheat sheet
Final Cheat sheet PUBH 3136
Popular in Health Law
Popular in Public Health
Test Prep (MCAT, SAT...)
verified elite notetaker
This 2 page Study Guide was uploaded by Gabriela Saint-Louis on Friday October 30, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to PUBH 3136 at George Washington University taught by Professor Teitelbaulm in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 42 views. For similar materials see Health Law in Public Health at George Washington University.
Reviews for Final Cheat sheet
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/30/15
No duty to treat principleDHurey v Edding ed No generalized right to health care therefore no duty to treat Even if existing patient spell of illnessbefore case common law obligation to have to treat license law to prevent people from practicing when not quali ed not compulsive Physician refused to come court held license from state nothing said he had to practice on terms he didn t accept or at all DEMTALA emergency treatment and active labor actaccess to care law5ummers v Baptist M Center dude fell out of tree er did not screen for chest popping complaint reasonable prudent person in his position would have done the same went to hospital and found he had several fractures and he sued rst doc for negligence not appropriately screened for treatmentljissue was EMTALA violated found that it wasn39t because purpose was to stop dumping discrimination reasons he didn t breach duty of treatmentjestablished a limit of emtala not that expansive set procedure standard for all in place Attempt to change no duty to treat for emergency situations made sure people in their emergency state had to be provided some care requires stabilization of patient prevent dumping has to be equal treatment in terms of how a reasonably prudent person in their situation would do Only federal health care access that everyone enjoys equally ADA Bragdon v Abbott 1990 Health care access law not a health law lntegrate or reintegrate disabled citizens into society First time SC interpreted ADA in health care contextHlV infections satis ed the ADA s de nition of disability Physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual includes procreation Held that HIV is a disability because it begins to affect white blood cells from moment of infectionCourt held ADA does not force treatment if it poses a direct threat to environment Remanded to decide if it was a direct threat to physician Standard of ca rel Canterbury v Spence Kidd back painagreed to operation but was not told of possible paralysisljstandard of informed consent what reasonable person would have told them was rst ruled in favor of doctor and then reversed saying doctor had a duty to disclose set precedent for duty to disclose but two exceptions Legal dutytodisclose falls on physician nowPotential risks or harms options amp results of inactionUnless patient is unconscious potential harm from not acting outweighs harm of acting risk of telling patient will cause unnecessarily complicate treatment 4 elements of Negligenceljl Duty breach Cause proximate harm Tort bw private parties corporate liability amp vicarious liabilityActual agency apparent agency nondelegable duty Civil Action using legal system to effectively incentivize or disincentivize corporations behavior jude skinnerjan SchiltzmanFascher if we use law to improve public health to balance scalesbut the process can be rigged by lawyers judges amp rules of litigation Corporate Liability Darling v Charleston Hospital Tight cast amputation sued rst doctor jury found that the hospital was liable through vicarious liability they argued they were not liable due to them not being the staff doctor vicariously liable for the actions of his nurses hospital in turn corporate liability for the entire staff and proceduresetc corporate liability is a hospital liable for the negligence of it s staff prior to this hospitals were not sued for actions of their staff after darling hospitals began hiring independent contractors to evade the vicarious liability Bovd v Albert Einstein Medical Centerl lboyd died after being treated by HMO doctors advertisement of competent doctors hMO claimed theory could only be applied to hospitals but they satis ed the requirements for apparent agency and control and supervision established apparent agency but only acting within their duty 3 exceptions to the vicarious liability actual agency proof of control supervisionapparent agency quotlooks toquot quotholds out toquot Nondelegable duty can t get out from liability if the duty is so important to a community that person has to be liable ex er doctors lones v Chicaao HMO lady calls doctor assistant and doctor both told her to use castor oil and the kid died 21 HMOs with 4500 just from Chicago HMO negligent here HMO negligent because they didn t ask if he had other patients Institutional Negligence held duty breach harm left with causation to be decided by jury set same standards imposed on doctors and hospitals for HMO Abortion trimester framework Roe v Wade judge blackland wrote framework and decision worked at Mayo clinicgranted texas law unconstitutional denied injunctive relive Right to privacy in 14amd broad enough to include abortion SC placed privacy right in quot liberty Fundamental right riggers highest level of scrutiny embedded in nation s consthist not absoluteljDue process procedural right to counsel etc substantive gov needs valid reason conception to 1st trimester doctor and patient state has no interest after rst trimester up until viability state s interest is triggered based on maternal health of mother may regulateafter viability interest in human life is triggered and they can regulate and even ban except where it threatens healthlife of mother Planned parenthood v CasevgtPensyvania law challenged due to the 5 provisions Changes Roe new framework undue burden unconstitutional viability still important but moved to 22 wks so outright bans can occur earlier 4 provisions survive casey informed consent noti cation 24 hours consent of parent for minor spousal noti cation wouldn t because it places an undue burden Undue burden intention is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of the woman seeking abortion before viability Holding state has interests from the outset of the pregnancy I protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus no longer unfettered access viability 22 weeks v 27 weeks interest begins at conception as opposed to rst trimester Partial Birth abortion Ban Act ignores mother s health aspect of exceptions after viability ok to overlook health of mother chipping away at the exception Procedure dangerous anyway but only for death Gonzalez v carhart amp Stenburg v Carhart upheld the pbaa Right to refuse of treatment legal competency Lane v Candura 77 yr old ladyno amputation desiredaughter wanted guardian court held irrationality of decision does notlegal incomptente daughterburden of proof Cruzanne v mis dept health director cruzanne unconscious accidentno oxygenparents wanted to take off life supportcourt held she had a convo with roommate about it and therefore had right to dieappeal strong interest in preserving rightroommate conversation not enough to determine intented esire there was no way to be sure represents the patients true wishes justice Brenan if the family doesn t then how could the state know more standard was to have clear and convincing evidence court said that was constitutional because interest was to preserve human life 3 coworkers Right to die 0regon 4 subsets of condition patient s mental competence always been or recent expression of desire physical condition vegetative terminally ill etc action of phsyciant passiveinaction Vaco v QuilZlivhether NY prohibition of assisting suicide violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amt justice rehnquist no because the two were different and therefore not protected under the equal protection clause distinction between refusal of treatment and assisted suicide jacobson vs Massachusetts amp police powers mass law requiring smallpox vaccination did the mandatory vacc law violate his 14th amdt equal protection clause court held this was an acceptable use of police powers state has right to overlook individual right in lieu of protecting public As long as it39s not to punish law wasn39t unreasonable or arbitrary Necessity reasonable means proportionality good outweighs harm harm avoidance
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'