Chapter 2 the Treatment Relationship

8/12/2019 Chapter 2 the Treatment Relationship

1/20

The Treatment Relationship:

Formation and Termination


2/20

The Duty to Treat-Hurley v.

EddingfieldPage 1!

What are the facts of Hurley v. Eddingfield?

Legal duty vs. ethical duty (see note 1, pg. 128)Suppose the doctor had een in the patient!s

"#$. #ight this have %ade a difference?

What does this case tell us aout the lin&age

et'een availale care and coverage?


3/20

The Duty to TreatWilmington General

Hospital v. Manlove-Page 121

What are the facts of Wilmington General Hospital v.Manlove? id the nurse provide a sufficient ustification for refusing

treat%ent?

What significance %ight attach if, contrary to the facts, thenurse had ta&en the child!s te%perature, felt his forehead orloo&ed do'n his throat?

What significance attaches to the fact this is a private hospital? *%ergency vs. non+e%ergent care #ust a private hospital provide e%ergency care?

Why %ight doctors and hospitals e held to a differentstandard?

See note , pg. 12-


4/20

The Duty to Treat

Should the %oral oligation to rescue in

e%ergencies rise to the level of a legal dutysuch that a hospital has a duty to treat?


5/20

The Duty to Treat--Wideman v. Shallowford

Community Hospital-Page 12

What are the facts of this case?

s their a general constitutional right to %edicaltreat%ent?

/re their circu%stances 'here such a right %ay

arise? 0special or other custodial relationship

f there is a right to e%ergency health care,

'hy not a right to all health care?


6/20

"ummary of #otes: Pg. 1$

o duty to treat rule consistent 'ith co%%on la' no

duty to rescue. #any states have ood Sa%aritan

statutes to reverse this rule in li%ited circu%stances

Spells of illness doctrine3 $nce treat%ent of illness

stops, ne' relationship %ust co%%ence

uty %ay e4ist as a result of contract3 With hospital (on call doc)!

"#$ or other insurer


7/20

"ummary of #otes: Pg. 1$

While private hospital li&e'ise %ay have no duty totreat3 f it %aintains an e%ergency roo%, or s re5uired y la' to have one,

uty can e4ist.

"ospitals duty to treat %ay e li%ited as result of3 t eing a specialty hospital

0no roo% at the inn6

So%e courts treat hospitals as 05uasi+pulic institutions'ith a duty to treat


8/20

The Duty to Treat%urditt v. DHH"-

Page 1&'

What are the facts of this case? What does *#7/L/ re5uire?

Screening

Stailiation97ransfer

What does the court hold? #ust futile care e provided even if necessary to

stailie? :ay ; case (pgs. 1


9/20


10/20

E(T)*) "ummary

*#7/L/ violations can result in loss of

#edicare 5ualification @ailure to treat 'here duty to treat e4ists can

result in oth *#7/L/ violations

#alpractice


11/20

+rongful Reasons to Re,et

Patients

ondiscri%ination principle relating to race,

se4, religion, disaility.


12/20

+rongful Reasons to Re,et Patients

" v. niversity Hospital-Page 1/!


What is the asis of the govern%ent!s 0other'ise

5ualified6 clai%?

"o' does the court respond? o you agree 'ith the court!s 0other'ise 5ualified6

argu%ent?

What aout its argu%ent relating to the co%ple4ity of

%edical decision %a&ing?

What aout is use of legislative history?


13/20


" v. niversity Hospital-Page 1/!

What does the court hold?

/ct doesn!t apply to %edical decisions

/ct doesn!t apply to parental decisions affectingchildren

iscri%ination prohiited only 'here handicap isunrelated to, and thus i%proper to consideration of,

the services in 5uestion, pg. 1=2 Where the handicapping condition is related to the

condition to e treated, it 'ill rarely, if ever, epossile to say 'ith certainty that a particularcondition 'as discri%inatory.


14/20


Patients" v. niversity Hospital

What aout loo&ing at relatedness as the ailityto enefit fro% treat%ent?


15/20


Glan! v. "erni#$- Page 1%


o you thin& doctors should e per%itted toconsider the ris& to the%selves 'hen

considering 'hether or not to treat disaled

patient?


16/20


Patients-+al0er v. Piere-Page 1/$



17/20

"truture of the Treatment Relationship-lanton2 Reynolds and *yon-- Pages 13&-

13$

What is the the%e of this case and Aeynolds

and Lyon?What are the facts of this case and 'hat does

the court hold?

s it possile to create the doctor+patient

relationship y a telephone call?


18/20

"ummary of #otes2 Pg. 13$

So%e courts %odify the no doctor+patient relationshipfro% curside consults y holding there is a duty (and

potential liaility) to the e4tent of the involve%ent in theconsultation

enerally, physicians doing e%ploy%ent or insurancephysicals do not estalish a doctor+patient relationship *4cept for findings posing an i%%ediate danger

*4a%iner volunteers treat%ent advice

octor %ay have 0duty6 to third parties (not theirpatients) that if reached can result in liaility Bicti%s of torts y patients

@ailure to 'arn patient of har% to others through contact


19/20

*imiting the "ope of the TreatmentRelationshipTun0l v. Regents of the

niversity of alifornia-Page 1'

What are the facts of this case and 'hat does the courthold?

/re there circu%stances 'here courts have upheld'aivers?

Cnder 'hat circu%stances %ight a physician li%ithis9her scope of services?

s it 'orse if so%e physicians are forced into anotherspecialty if they are %orally opposed to aortion or ifso%e 'o%en are unale to otain an aortion 'henthey 'ant one?


20/20

Terminating the Treatment RelationshipRi0s v. %udge and Payton v. +eaver

Page 1'' 4 1$!

What is the principal point of the la' of

aandon%ent?What is the underlying pre%ise of the doctrine?

What is the procedure to acco%plish%ent a

proper aandon%ent?

What e4plains the different outco%es in these

cases?

Chapter 2 the Treatment Relationship

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 2 the Treatment Relationship