Case Study Of The United States V. Mcclatchey

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

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

In order to claim that a doctor or hospital was negligent in a medical malpractice case, there must be specific requirements present. First off a doctor-patient relationship must have existed (Boeschen, 2014). An individual making the claim must show that there was a physician-patient relationship with the doctor being sued. This means the doctor was hired and agreed to be hired for the medical care provided. If a doctor began seeing you and treating you, it is easy to prove a physician-patient relationship existed. Second the plaintiff must show the doctor was negligent. Regardless of if the patient is unhappy with their treatment or results, does not determine the doctor is liable for medical malpractice. The doctor must have been negligent -- not reasonably skillful and careful -- in a diagnosis or treatment (Boeschen, 2014). To sue for malpractice, you must be able to show that the doctor caused you harm in a way that a competent doctor, under the same circumstances would not have (Boeschen, 2014). In many cases, the doctor's care is not required to be the best possible, but simply "reasonably skillful and careful” (Boeschen, 2014). Whether or not the doctor was reasonably skillful and careful is often up to the medical malpractice claim.

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.

The resident physician violated beneficence, because he did not do good by respecting the patient’s autonomy and he was being uncivil.

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

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.

The discharge of an employee in contravention of fundamental public policy, as expressed in a statute or constitutional provision, can serve as the basis for a tort action for wrongful discharge. (Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, supra, 1 Cal. 4th at pp. 1094-1097; see Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 65, 88-91 [276 Cal.Rptr. 130, 801 P.2d 373].) Accordingly, since section 2056 expresses a public policy to protect physicians and surgeons from retaliation for advocating medically appropriate health care, a wrongful [84 Cal. App. 4th 52] discharge action can be premised on a termination in violation of that public policy.

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

For decades doctors have been revered, respected, and regarded as “saviors,” but what medical practitioners and health officials do not reveal is that there are some doctors that are unlawfully practicing medicine, and nothing is being done to stop them. Medical malpractice is the illegal or improper practice of medicine. Unfortunately, this is far too common. The people that are victims of malpractice often get no compensation for the problems a physician has created. Although doctors are trusted individuals and have a right to provide medical advice, perform surgeries, and prescribe medicine, patients should also be able to have more control and security in their medical dealings through new laws and regulations.

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.

8. Which of the following statements about discrimination on the basis of national origin is true?

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

Considering the provisions of the Stark law, it is clear that Congress enacted the law to curb the self-referrals that were prevalent among medical practitioners due to the sprawling specialty hospitals and health facilities (Choudhry, Choudhry, and Brennan 2005). Furthermore, Congress saw the need to prevent a physician’s referral decision that is dependent on a selfish, financial gain. The idea was to preclude “overutilization” of certain health care facilities that may arise from objectionable referrals and the resultant increase in health care cost (Staman 2010).

In the administration of medical services in the United States law and regulation now control much of professional life. (p. 586)