United States V. Greber Case Summary

Authors Note: This paper is being submitted on the 18th of March 2013 for the winter semester of Medical Law and Ethics section 05.

1.Probable cause is a set of facts surrounding a specific circumstances that leads a “reasonable person” to believe an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause is required in the instances of an arrest, search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant. To ESTABILISH reasonable cause the officer can use any trustworthy information. For example the office could use his/her experience, informant information, first hand observations or knowledge, victim reports, anonymous tips, or hearsay.

The physicians offered to sublease the nuclear camera to the hospital, this was a violation of the Stark Law. Under the Stark Law physicians are prohibited from completing any acts under Medicare and Medicaid that are for financial interest or gain. Dr. S. and Dr. V. crossed a thin line of what was lawful and unlawful, since the physicians already had partnership with the hospital, to gain immunity for admitting patients to the hospital, they let them use the nuclear camera as a tradeoff. This nuclear camera was used for Medicare patients and Medicare was billed for services. The problem with this, since the physicians were in affiliation with the hospital a financial

Gibbons v. Ogden was a landmark decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that power to regulate interstate commerce. It was given to congress by the commerce clause of the constitution. It was led by Chief Justice John Marshall. The debate in Gibbons concerned contending cases of adversary steamship establishments. The condition of New York gave Aaron Ogden a select permit to work steamboat ships between New Jersey and New York City on the Hudson River. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat administrator, ran two ships along the same course. Ogden looked for an order against Gibbons in a New York state court, asserting that the state had issued him elite rights to work the course. Accordingly, Gibbons guaranteed he had the privilege to work on the course in accordance with a 1793 demonstration of Congress directing waterfront business. The New York court found for Ogden and requested Gibbons to stop working his steamships; on bid, the New York Supreme Court avowed the request. Gibbons spoke to the U.S. Preeminent Court, which surveyed the case in 1824. John Marshall ruled for Gibbons, holding that New York 's selective award to Ogden disregarded the government authorizing demonstration of 1793. In coming to its choice, the Court deciphered the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution surprisingly. The proviso peruses that "Congress should have energy to manage trade among the few States." According to the Court, "trade" included articles in

I reviewed the case of Mr. Sam Superstar and Dr. Peters, in regards to possible proceedings and to which party would be at fault. I have found that in this case both parties could be found at fault in many different violations, both civil and criminal. Therefore there could be possible proceedings brought against both parties. It shows many aspects, of many, violations of laws. These violations range from simple breach of contract to theft of property. We will need to look into the violations more in depth. Following you will find a summary of my findings.

Fact: Dr King is hired by Bio Chem. She signed a special contract that specifies a period of probation. During this period, she can be let go but you have to be known the wrong behavior in order to be able to rectify it. If the wrong behavior persists then your contract will be terminated.

On a consolidated appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and remanded. (721 F2d 550) The court held that Loudermill and Donnelly had been deprived of due process and that their compelling private interest in retaining employment, combined with the value of presenting evidence prior to dismissal, outweighed the added administrative burden of a pretermination hearing. The court affirmed the district court’s

“Is the U.S. Constitution a living, breathing document?” Well, there could be lots of answers to this question. This helps our government define our rights and freedoms. The

This review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related to the case. First, it will address the legality of the case by reviewing the definition and analysis of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Article 2. Next, this review will analyze the business effects of the case as they relate to the monetary bottom line and Stylarama’s attempt to protect his profits. Finally, it will highlight

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.

The defendants, The Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital and Wesley Long Community Hospital, are North Carolina corporations, and each has established, owns, and maintains a general hospital in the City of Greensboro, North Carolina.

relationship with the doctor has been established. In the case Hall v. Hilbun there was a

Burgett sought treatment for her son that prosecutors say was unnecessary, she convinced doctors at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center that she was a physician.

Mark Skornia filed a complaint against Dr Kenneth Smith alleging mismanagement and misdiagnosis of the complications after his mother Arlene Skornia was admitted to Mercy Hospital in Washington, MO on August 13, 2013. Mr Skornia’s primary concerns are his mother did not receive nourishment for 7 days, Dr Smith lacked the ability to appropriately titrate pain medications, and Mrs Skornia was released from the hospital with no plan in place or consultation with the family.

Yes. I think Dr. Gerber is still responsible. Although the payments made had legitimate purposes, they could still be viewed as intent to induce referrals. And as long as one purpose among all was intended to induce referrals then a statute becomes violated. Secondly, the law views remuneration as anything that has monetary value. Therefore, I would agree the court would