1. What liability do the other six partners in this medical practice have in connection with this lawsuit? Professional organizations like medical practices, law offices, and accounting firms are required by law to obtain insurance to cover against wrongdoings committed by a principal or an agent of the business. However, increasing liabilities associated with possible wrongdoings and regular business operations require additional forms of protection. By changing to a limited liability partnership, professional organizations are better able to protect each partner in the case that something happens professionally. Unfortunately, wrongdoings committed by an individual partner negates the protection offered to him or her by the chosen business …show more content…
However, there may also be cases in which the remaining six doctors could be found liable and it is crucial to understand which factors impact the distributed liability. Forty-nine out of fifty states participated in the adoption of either the Revised Uniform Partnership Act (RUPA or the Revise Uniform Limited Partnership Act (RULPA) which states that a partner is not fully liable for the wrongdoings committed by another partner or for partnership obligations. States also adopted statutes that closely mirror the sections of the RUPA and the RULPA. The state where the medical practice received incorporation will determine which statute must be followed. If the medical practice is in Louisiana, another statute must be enacted in order to provide protection for the remaining six doctors. If the partnership remained a general partnership, all seven doctors are liable based on each partner’s ownership interest (Rappold …show more content…
The first step is filing the Articles of Incorporation to the Secretary of State. If the medical practice neglected to send something in writing regarding their limited liability partnership, the court will find the six doctors liable just like in Campbell vs. Lichtenfels. Doctor involvement may also cause liability protection negation. Even though one doctor is solely responsible for the death of the patient, other doctors may be found liable by association. For example, one of the other doctors takes a CT scan of the patient’s brain and diagnoses a brain tumor. The information is relayed to the doctor and a surgery is scheduled. On surgery day, the surgeon accidentally causes a brain hemorrhage, which kills the patient. During the autopsy, no evidence of a brain tumor was found. The resulting incident makes two doctors liable for the malpractice; one was negligent for the patient’s death and the other was reckless for an incorrect diagnosis. The other five doctors are protected under limited liability (Rappold
With regard to Ms. Green’s claims against O’Brien, it is apparent that Ms. Green was O’Brien’s client, and that O’Brien owed Ms. Green a duty. Should this case proceed to trial we do not anticipate that we would argue to a jury that O’Brien did not neglect this duty. Rather, there are serious questions as to whether “the negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the client.” Kendall v. Rogers, 181 Md. 606, 611-12 (1943). Indeed, the estate will have to demonstrate that Ms. Green would have prevailed in proving that one or both health care provider defendants committed medical negligence that caused her to fall into the diabetic coma.
Partnership liability tort can take place when a partner or all partners acting on partnership business causes injury to a third person. Cause of this tort could be a negligent act, a breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, fraud, or another intentional tort (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 538). Under the Uniform Partnership Act, partners are jointly and severally liable for torts and breaches of trust (UPA, 2010). This is true even if the co-partner(s) did not participate in the act. The joint and severally liable tort permits a third party to sue one or more of the partners
The critical aspects in the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine that are beneficial for the health care organization are in many ways. There are provisions that comprise the (RCO) and protect in making the health care organization aware in cases of severe punishment of liability. According to (Clark, 2012), the (RCO) it states that the doctrine has been aggressively used and applied by regulators and prosecutors against businessmen in various administrative, civil, and criminal procedures, and has been described as the
Business organizations operate in a variety of legal forms. The common forms are sole proprietorships, partnerships (general partnerships and limited partnerships) and corporations (traditional S and C corporations and limited liability corporations). The form of organizations is generally decided from the beginning of the business based on several factors, such as ease and cost of formation, capital requirements and cost of money, flexibility in managing and decision making, government rules, liabilities, risk and management, and tax considerations. The article titled “Decision Yields Hits and Misses for Plaintiff in Partnership Dissolution Case,” that I will discuss below is about a partnership dispute that lead to several claims, including dissolution claim.
The plaintiffs, A. V. Blount, Jr., Walter J. Hughes, Norman N. Jones, Girardeau Alexander, E. C. Noel, III, and F. E. Davis, are medical doctors (practitioners) licensed to practice and practicing medicine in the City of Greensboro, North Carolina.
1. A shareholder in a professional corporation can be liable for malpractice arising from the rendering of professional services. (Points : 2)
The Partnership will be formed, effective July 7, 2015, by the filing of a limited partnership declaration pursuant to the Partnerships Act (Ontario), which is referred to as “ACT”, to carry on the business, for the purposes of profit, of providing legal services permitted within the scope of Ontario paralegal practice.
According to the scenario, Akiva and Tara want to open a birthing clinic and take out large loans to finance the business, which is a medical practice. The business would be a partnership of two medical professionals that would allow Akiva and Tara to form a limited liability partnership or LLP. An LLP is beneficial for the partners because each partner is only liable for debts or obligations up to the capital contribution or investments in the partnership (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 274, pp. 1).
Each partner is responsible for any negligence made by himself or employees being under his direct supervision
The majority of practitioners prove their competence every day, working diligently and ethically in the care of their patients. Even so Doctors continue to harm patients through malpractice. That small percentage adds up to enough negligence cases that we and other law firms have made medical practice litigation a primary focal point.
Limited Liability Corporation and limited liability partnership are two of several types of structures that individuals can give thought to forming when starting a business. To form a corporation each member has limited liability, but the corporation has full liability. Forming a partnership requires at least two people, which are called partners, and each partner has limited liability. This paper will describe the roles of Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) and Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). In addition, the paper will describe under what circumstance one would
Midtown neurology was started by a physician who has been practicing in the community. As the practice grew he recruited four new neurologists. The new neurologists took over the practice and threw the founding physician out. The founding physician has made a proprietary software for the practice which is not allowing the new physicians and their manager to carry out important functions. The neurologists are productive but the practice is not going in a positive direction due to improper management.
Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to
Provisions such as limited liability on part of auditors, increased interest for shareholders, etc. are part of the Companies Act of 2006 in the UK. This Act includes limited liability by contract with regard to such an amount which is deemed reasonable and fair in all circumstances (Coffee, 2007). In the last few years, changes have been brought in terms of the legal regime in the UK’s governance system. For instance, since 1989, firms in the UK have been able to incorporate, in that the firms can form limited liability partnerships, wherein they can protect all the partners from any kind of personal bankruptcy unless the partners were responsible personally in any kind of faulty opinion in terms of audit. Nonetheless, firms in the UK have continued to choose abandoning the joint responsibility option for lucrative limited liability regime (Hicks, 2008). The firms in the UK have used the case of Arthur Anderson LLP to modify and reform joint and several liability based on two arguments and these were – collapse of a major firm under the pressure of aforementioned liability may leave the market concentrated; and liability risk can be considered as a barrier in terms of smaller firms who attempt to enter a concentrated market. Within the context of limited liability, there are more unique kinds of liabilities which are deemed to be missing from the Act
held liable for all the debts of the partnership if the other partners prove unable to contribute.