Department's Objection To Exhibit A-1

This case involves a physician, Dr. Burditt, who had disregarded the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). This act was implemented to prevent “Medicare-participating hospital from “dumping” patients out of the emergency room” (Pozgar, 2016, p. 245). In this case, Dr. Burditt had had examined the patient and made the decision to transfer her to another hospital that was located quite a distance away. When the patient was evaluated, it was noted that she had “dangerously high blood pressure (210/130) and was in active labor with ruptured membranes” (Pozgar, 2016, p. 245). Dr. Burditt should have continued to treat this patient because of her symptoms, which could have resulted in the death

On review in the appellate court, after the trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment for the defendant, were three testimonies submitted by the defendant. Id. at *2. The court held that the testimonies did not sufficiently establish the appropriate standard of care because while each testimony stated the applicable standard of care, none of them stated how the standard was or was not met. Id. at *9. In addition, the plaintiff submitted expert testimony by a veterinarian who stated,

THE THE APPELLANT’S STATEMENT OF THE CASE, STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND ARGUMENTS NUMBERED IV-VI ARE BACKED BY EVIDENCE CONTAINED ON THE RECORD. EVEN SOME OF THIS EVIDENCE WERE PROVIDED BY OPPOSING

Taking as true all the allegations of the Amended Claims, dismissal is appropriate for three independent reasons: (A) Dr. Stout cannot show that his purported reliance on the purported representations was reasonable or justified; (B) Dr. Stout has not alleged the existence of sufficiently specific representations necessary to sustain his claim; and (C) Dr. Stout’s claim is barred by the economic loss rule. These three defenses are discussed in order in

In this case, the Department’s Representative testified to mailing the Appellant a manual notice on June 3, 2016 advising that the household’s application for cash assistance was being denied due to failure to meet residency requirements. On August 9, 2016, The Appellant called the Department to make an oral appeal. The Appellant’s appeal was filed August 10, 2016, sixty-eight (68) days after the denial. Since the appeal was

higher standard for evidence of what the person would want if they were able to make that

The appellant, Deepa, received false advice about the evidence she must submit, including evidence regarding an affair she had with a nurse at big public hospital 12 years ago. Due to this, Deepa requested to settle on whatever grounds her lawyer could get with Big Public Hospital, the Big Public Hospital was not willing to make a settlement offer. Deepa then discontinued the proceedings due to the fact she did not wish to give evidence, she later found out from another lawyer friend that evidence regarding the affair was not needed.

Whether the circuit court erred by denying Johnson’s motion to exclude documents under Md. Rule 5-403.

II. Whether the government’s presentation of circumstantial evidence showing that the defendant-appellant acted evasively in his dealing with the substance at issue, knew the chemical components that made up the substance, and knew the effects of the substance was sufficient to prove the requisite scienter element necessary to sustain

In 2004 the plaintiff Andrea Larkin suffered from ongoing bouts of dizziness, she sought the care of the defendant Dr. Jehane Johnston of Dedham Medical Associates. She underwent MRI and CTA testing twice, once during 2004 upon her initial visit with the defendant and another in 2005 for a follow up. During both times it was determined that the plaintiff showed abnormalities in her brain- a venous varix in the left side and an aneurism on her right side of the brain. In 2006 Mrs. Larkin claimed that she was due for another imaging study but the defendant failed to order the tests or set up a referral. Dr. Johnston also failed to place information regarding her condition on the patient’s problems list database of the hospital. The plaintiff

Rida Elias wrote this case under the supervision of Professor Roderick E. White solely to provide material for class discussion. The

The Appellants’ in this case would have to show that there is “No Dispute as to the material facts of the case, meaning that because there client did not have “actual knowledge” that Mr. Hard was visibly intoxicated at the time he received his last drink, as a “Matter of Law”, the Court would have to grant their motion. The Appellee would have to show that there are, in fact, matters that should be heard by a jury and therefore, the motion should be denied.

The court held that the expert medical witness testimony regarding the Herbel Study, his own experiences as a physician, and the medical record of the defendant did not provide enough evidence to justify the forced medication of the defendant even though all three concerned patients with delusional disorders. Watson, 793 F.3d at 428. The court found that the fourteen year-old Herbel study was inherently flawed due to its design and did not justify the forced medication of the defendant because the information provided about its subjects was neither similar enough nor specific enough to the situation of the defendant at hand. Id. at 426. Similarly, the court faulted the government’s reliance on the personal experiences of the witness because the information provided regarding his patients was not specific enough to the defendant’s situation. In particular, the testimony did not indicate that the previously treated patients had delusions that were “meaningfully similar in nature and persistence” to those of the defendants. The medical record of the defendant was also inadequate because although it reported that he had previously been given the, it only indicated that he had been treated and released. Id. at

Pretend you supervise the correspondence unit of the health information services department of a medical center. Today, you received a subpoena duces tectum from an attorney, demanding either the originals or copies of all health records concerning Mary Smith, who allegedly is or was a patient of the medical center. The subpoena lacks sufficient information for you to determine whether Mary Smith is or was a patient in your facility. The subpoena is not accompanied by a valid authorization to release information for Mary Smith, as required in your state. (Case Study, p. 62)

The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, but the appeals court reversed the judgment and reinstated the lawsuit, holding that an EMTALA violation by the hospital may have occurred.