Legal Aspects of Health Care

In determining the indebtedness of the parties, it is undeniable that the following be first established by the claimant a) debt instrument b) break in of trading c) causation d) defacement. (Tort p. 1) It is clear that once a longanimous enters the premises of the hospital, an implied contract is thereby created and the hospital is under obligation to pick up to the admits of the unhurried with due c be and diligence. This work was however spoiled when the hospital employees failed to provide immediate attention to the long-sufferings needs in spite of the urgency and immediacy of the situation.It is also clear that the delay of more than one hour from the time the patient was admitted to the hospital despite the finding that the patient needed to undergo immediate cognitive process is a breach of that duty of apportion. There is also a proximate cause between the breach and the injury suffered by the patient, which is partial paralysis of his hands. The question left to be determined is who is trustworthy for the damage suffered. In this consequence, the contain committed a breach of her duty of feel for and was absent-minded.Instead of giving immediate health check attention to the patient, the nurse decided to first determine if the patient is cover by insurance. The sawbones also committed a breach of his duty of care and due diligence to patient. The checkup profession is founded on the duty of due diligence which doctors owe to their patients. In this case, despite the finding of the need for immediate surgery the surgeon merely proceeded to his way without even referring the patient to new(prenominal) doctors who are on duty and who are non on break.The x-ray technologist was likewise negligent when he failed to deliver the x-rays to the radiologist for examination despite the urgency of the situation. The fact that there are other patients in the hospital is non an excuse since every hospital is demand by lawfulness to ha ve an adequate number of checkup power to attend to the needs of all its patients. Finding that the hospital employees are negligent, the metropolis General hospital itself bunsnot omit its liability. Hospitals can no longer escape their liability under the doctrine of charitable immunity. Karen A. Dean, 1999 p. 1) Under the doctrine of resondeat tiptop, the indifference of its employees is imputed to them because they are the ones who have control and supervision of their employees.The fact that the hospital is not negligent is not a defense so long as it can be proven that its employees were negligent. Further the recent trend in the new cases is that it is no longer a defense that there is no employer-employee relationship between the physician or the x-ray technician or the nurse to escape its liability (Gene A. Blumenreich p. ) The immunity from liability of hospitals is being restricted by the recent cases. The 1992 case of Uhr vs. Lutheran General Hospital (226 Ill. Ap p. 3d 236, 589 N. E. 2d 723) confirms that a hospital may be held liable for the negligent acts of an free lance contractor. Consider also the 1993 case of Gilbert v. Sycamore Community Hospital where the Illinois Supreme Court abrogated the common-law immunity of hospitals for Independent Contractor thoughtlessness (156 Ill. 2d 511, 622 N. E. 2d 788) Ib. Yes. The Emergency Medical Treatment and industrious Labor Act (EMTALA) applies in this case.The law imposes upon hospitals the obligation to provide aesculapian screening examination to determine whether an emergency health check checkup condition exists. This medical screening examination must be conducted regardless of the Medicare status, insurance reporting or the ability to pay of the patient. (Daris McNelice p. 1) The failure to discharge this obligation renders the hospital liable for civil damages to the injury that the patient may suffer. In this case, the nurse who attended the patient when he arrived for treatmen t did not at present conduct medical screening examination to determine the patients condition.The act of the nurse in providing the patient with a towel was uttermost short of the obligation required by law. Instead the nurse do an interrogatory whether the patient is covered by insurance. Though the law does not prohibit the hospital from inquiring into the ability to pay of the patient, it does require that this inquiry should not delay the conduct of the medical screening examination. The purpose of the law is clear which is to protect against discrimination against patients. This was violated in this case.The patient was easy that he bumped into a surgeon who determined that he is in a serious medical condition. Despite this however, the hospital still failed to provide appropriate medical attention to the patient despite the finding that an emergency medical condition exists. Because of the hospitals failure to comply with the provisions of the say law it may be held li able for damages. 2. The liability for remissness of the nurse, surgeon and the x-ray technologist is distinct and separate. Their liability is free lance of each other.It is not a defense in tort cases that the negligence of one is superior to another. The only determining point is that there was a breach of duty committed by these hospital employees and that this breach was the proximate cause of the injury of the patient. As such, the patient who was injured may indorse them liable unitedly with the hospital in one get. However, ordinarily the patients only file suit for damages against the hospital. In case he is able to recover, the hospital has the picking of filing claims against these negligent employees who are solidarily liable for their negligence to the hospital.Legal Aspects of health CareNowadays, most health care memorial tablets are well furnished with standards and laws concerned in the provision of health care supervision and management. Yet, numerous hea lth care organizations face legal issues regarding their conduct especially with regards to patients rights, institutional legal responsibility, opposing trust and relationship with the employees. The denomination entitled conventional Theories of Liability enumerated four theories of liability dealing mostly with the patients concerns.These theories of liability are as follows Negligence (or Direct Liability) for Injuries Caused by Cost Containment Measures discusses that health care organization can be held responsible for the negligence committed that can cause impairment to the patient under their supervision. In simple terms, negligence is a careless act of the health care provider towards a patient. A health care provider is held liable for a negligent act according to Tiwari and Baldwa if the damage is so obvious that there is no need for any proof of negligence like operating on the wrong part of the body of the patient or undertaking a wrong process of operating (Tiwari & amp Baldwa, 2001).The Corporate Negligence tenet stresses out on the responsibility of the hospital itself to provide health care to its patient. As stated by Randall, Corporation negligence will hold an organization liable for the careless performance of a provider when the organization was negligent in hiring or supervising the provider itself (Randall, 1999) .Respondeat Superior Doctrine, as pointed out by Randall, the employer is held responsible for the neglectful acts of an employee provider even though the employer itself has not acted negligently (Randall, 1999). The employer (hospital itself) is held liable for the careless act inflicted by an independent contractor.According to Randall, Ostensible agency liability is a type of explicit liability in which a health care organization can be apprehended liable for a health care providers negligence (Randall, 1999).A case where in the negligence of the doctors and other medical providers were committed was the case of Darryl Dukes versus U.S. Healthcare, Inc., Germantown Hospital and Medical means William W. Banks, M.D Charles R. Drew Mental Health Center Edward B. Hosten, M.D. Darryl Dukes, having an ear problem, consulted his physician, William W. Banks.As stated on the case provided by FindLaw, Darryl underwent a surgery and Banks organized a recommendation asking for crosscurrent studies. Darryl handed that medical recommendation to the laboratory of Germantown Hospital and Medical Center but the hospital declined to carry out the tests. The hospital did not provide any rendering for their negative response (D.C. genteel Action No. 93-cv-00577, 2006). After that, Dukes seek for a second opinion from Dr. Edward B. Hosten, M.D who also asked him to undergo a blood test. Dukes medical condition got worse and he died. It was stated by the article provided by the FindLaw that Darryls blood sugar level was very high. That condition supposedly could have been detected through a well-timed blood test(D .C. cultivated Action No. 93-cv-00577, 2006).The case, dealing more on the negligence of the medical provider, had gone through a long and critical process. As clean-cut by the case, Dukes family filed a suit against organization through which Darryl, being a member of Health Maintenance Organization, accepted his medical treatment. The HMO is considered responsible for the wrongful conduct of doctors and other health care providers which is under the preaching of ostensible theory (D.C. Civil Action No. 93-cv-00577, 2006). The case was discount and the court granted the HMOs motion because according to the description on the article (FindLaw), any ostensible agency claim ought to be made on the basis of what the assistance arrangement provides and is consequently associated to it(D.C. Civil Action No. 93-cv-00577, 2006)ReferencesDukes v. United States Health Care Sys., Inc. , 848 F. Supp. 39, 42 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (UNITED STATES court OF APPEALS 2006).Randall, V. R. ( 1999). Tra ditional Theories of LiabilityRetrieved October 28, 2006, fromhttp//academic.udayton.edu/health/02organ/manage01e.htmN_290_Tiwari, S. K., & Baldwa, M. (2001). Medical Negligence Retrieved October 28, 2006, from http//www.indianpediatrics.net/may2001/may-488-495.htm