GEICO Case Summary

Husband and wife, Gary and Renna Pehle were infected with HIV at the time they applied for life insurance with Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company. The couple did not know they were infected with HIV at the time. The insurance company ran blood tests from the Pehles. The Pehles then signed a contract form which was given to them by a Farm Bureau agent. A nurse from Farm Bureau watched as the Pehles signed the contract. Blood samples were sent to a third-party laboratory called LabOne. Farm Bureau then sent a notice to the Pehles rejecting them from their life insurance policy, which advised the couple that if they wished to have their application reviewed to contact their physician. The Pehles did not take any action in doing so. Two years past and Renna Pehle is confirmed to have AIDS. The Pehles then sues Farm Bureau, LabOne, and LabOne’s medical director Dr. J. Alexander Lowden for negligence, for failing to tell them they were HIV-positive.

The record presents no real issue of materialistic facts that Orleans Regional Hospital did not employ over 100 employees, this caused Orleans Regional Hospital to be pursued as an employer to the WARN Act. Most of the employees who were still employed at North Louisiana Regional Hospital Partnership to become employees for Brentwood, which also operated in the same physical location as North Louisiana Regional Hospital Partnership. They even had the extent of the same phone number. Both hospitals treated patients with the same conditions including psychiatric and substance abuse disorders which lead to liabilities.. The defendant had also failed to provide court with detailed information on how the total number of hours claimed attorneys fees were unreasonable. The district court however found the, reasonable for the work performed. The defendants’ false allegation that the entries are unreasonable did not persuade them that the district court abused its power and kept matters private causing

FACTS. Darling went to the emergency after he injured his leg during a football game. Dr. Alexander was the only physician in the emergency room that day and he had not treated a severe leg injury for 3 years. After an X-ray revealed that the tibia and fibula was broken the physician set the leg and applied a cast. Not to long after the placement of the cast, Darling complained of continuous pain. Dr. Alexander never called in a specialist. The patient was eventually transferred to another hospital, but eventually his leg was amputated. Darling sued Dr. Alexander and Charleston Community Memorial Hospital for negligence. Dr. Alexander settled out of court for $40,000. The courts ruled

The scenario and the details presented herein adequately meet the basic established criteria for a malpractice claim to be filed on the plaintiff’s behalf against Miraculous Regional Health System (MRHS henceforth). The circumstances surrounding Ms. Bonnie Bowser’s unexpected demise calls into question the most basic principles involved in caring of a patient under provider’s care. In legal terms, those fundamentals include the following four pillars below:

The case was based on plaintiff claims that they were engaged in protected activity of investigating potential false claims submitted by the hospital to the government. According to the suit filed, a doctor on site was involved in a kickback agreement with the hospital anesthesiologist, Dr. Brad Barth, the husband of one of the plaintiffs in the case.

does not present a justiciable issue); Di Portanova v. Monrow, 229 S.W.3d 324, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], 2006, pet. denied) (beneficiary could not bring declaratory judgment action to resolve dispute over how trustee should exercise discretion given to trustee in the trust instrument). Here, no justiciable conflict exists because Texas law clearly establishes that Plaintiff has no equitable (or legal) interest in the settlement funds paid by Geico to St. David’s.

This case of U.S government versus defendant McClatchey involves hospital CEO, two physicians, and Mr. McClatchy who is a part of the administrative staff at Baptist Medical center. Two physicians involved in the case worked together in a group practice called BVMG that provided care to the nursing homes. In 1984, they brought a proposal to the Baptist Medical Center to have them buy the practice and in return physicians were to refer their patients from other hospitals to Baptist medical center. This proposal was rejected; however, some negotiation of this plan took place and Baptist medical center agreed to pay a fee of 75,000 dollars to each doctor for

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.

Laurence Kaye (“Kaye”), appellant, an attorney, represented Linda Wilson-Gaskins (“Wilson-Gaskins”), appellee, in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed against Wilson-Gaskins’s former employer, Government Employees Insurance Co. (“GEICO”). Following that representation, Wilson-Gaskins filed a complaint against Kaye alleging “legal malpractice.” The Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted summary judgment in favor of Kaye and dismissed Wilson-Gaskins’s complaint. Wilson-Gaskins appealed the dismissal of her claim. We affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court and held that Wilson-Gaskins failed to make a prima facie case for professional negligence. We further held that a release contained in a settlement agreement between the parties

A civil suit is commonly derived from a private party or individual, who alleges damages from duty of care. Once a civil case begins, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove, with evidence, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Conversely, the defendant must prove their affirmative defense against documented allegations. The Oliver versus Brock case proves the importance of supporting evidence as opposed to hearsay statements, to prove the truth of the matter. In the Oliver versus Brock case, Cathy (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Bryan Whitfield Memorial Hospital of Demopolis and the treating physicians Dr. F.S. Whitfield, Dr. Paul Ketcham and Dr. E.C. Brock (Defendant) for negligence of care. Analyzing the facts in

No, Based on the facts, Brandt does not have a reasonable case against Health Center. Her claim does not look reasonable according to the case because this is the mix-contract of goods and service, and dominated by service. Health center is likely to recover the lawyer’s fees because there is no real case exists between Brandt and the Center.

The Senior Hospitalist acknowledged the prior relationship in his note, where he falsely claimed that he would not only notify me of the admission, but enlist me as a consultant. Neither occurred.

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?

1. What liability do the other six partners in this medical practice have in connection with this lawsuit?

The last element is damages. “Damages are proven when it is determined the injury was a result of the practitioner's actions. The intent of awarding damages is to make the plaintiff whole, meaning as if the negligence never occurred” (Walker, 2011, para. 15). Damages are usually paid in the form of money, but I do not think any amount of money will ever make this patient feel whole or that the negligence never occurred.