1. Type of court & the significance of that court rending the opinion:
a. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
b. Flagiello lost at the state trial court level and has appealed to the state supreme court. The state supreme courts are entrusted with analyzing the legal standard that was applied at the intermediate appellate court level. Thus, the role of state supreme court is effectively to implement rules of procedure and govern the practice of law in the state.
2. Facts of the Case:
a. While being treated for an unrelated illness at the Pennsylvania Hospital a patient named Mary Flagiello fell and broker her ankle.
b. Flagiello claimed that her injury was due to the negligence of two hospital employees
c. Flagiello and her husband want compensation
…show more content…
It is our conclusion that there is today no factual justification for immunity in a case such as this, and that the principles of law, logic and intrinsic justice demand that the mantle of humanity must be withdrawn.” (Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, Michigan)
f. “In 1910, two-thirds of the hospital space was made up of charity patients and 60%of the income was from charity. In 1963, the fees from paying patients constituted 90.92% of the income.” (Gable v. Sisters of St. Francis, Pennsylvania)
g. Justice Paxson said that the charitable immunity rule is “hoary with antiquity and prevails alike in this country and in England.” (Fire Insurance Patrol v. Boyd, Pennsylvania)
h. “Judge Rutledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia revealed, in perhaps the most searing, analytical, and penetrating opinion on the subject up to that time, that the charity immunity doctrine was built on a foundation of sand.” (Georgetown College v. Hughes, Federal)
i. “Reviewed all of the arguments in favor of the immunity, and demolished them so completely as to change the whole course of the law. It has been followed by a deluge of decisions holding that there is no immunity at all, and that a charity is liable for its torts to the same extent as any other defendant.” (Prosser on Torts, 3d Ed., 1964,p
…show more content…
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that although the doctrine of stare decisis plays an important role, standing precedent can be abandoned to allow for evolving societal standards of behavior or expectations.
i. “The principle of stare decisis does not demand that we must follow precedents, which shipwreck justice.”
b. Court stated that whatever the law may have been regarding charitable institutions in the past, it does not meet the conditions of today.
i. “Hospitals today are growing into mighty edifices in brick, stone, glass and marble. Many of them maintain large staffs, they use the best equipment that science can devise, they utilize the most modern methods in devoting themselves to the noblest purpose of man, that of helping’s one’s stricken brother. But they do all this on a business basis, submitting invoices for services rendered.”
c. Court stated that “if a hospital functions as a business institution, by charging and receiving money for what it offers, it must be a business establishment also in meeting obligations it incurs in running that establishment.”
i. “One of those obligations is that it must exercise a proper degree of care for its patients, and, to the extent that it fails in that care, it should be liable in damages as any other commercial firm would be
Learning from what Dr. Anna Pou had to face with the lawsuits she was dealing with makes me cringe. As Healthcare professionals, having to worry of possibly being sued for believing what is right for the patient or as a whole for the hospitals health is ridiculous. Healthcare professionals like Dr. Pou, have taken the Hippocratic oath, and one of the promises made within that oath is “first, do no harm”. Often time’s society look at courts cases as a battle versus two oppositions, but Dr. Pou’s case it is not. In her statements from national television she states saying her role was to ‘‘help’’ patients ‘‘through their pain,’’.
In the case of Tomcik v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction, the main issue present was the medical negligence demonstrated by the staff of the medical clinic at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction towards the inmate Tomcik. Specifically, nonfeasance, or the “failure to act, when there is a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances” (Pozgar, 2016, p. 192), was displayed when the employees at the medical clinic failed to give immediate medical attention to Tomcik when she continually signed the clinic list and “provided the reason she was requesting
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
for attorneys, this case was a significant change in the United States judicial system, and
Four doctors, three terminally ill patients, and a nonprofit organization called Compassion in Dying, came together to file a suit arguing that prohibiting PAS is against a person’s right to liberty (Illingworth & Parmet, 2006). This became known as the Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al. case. This case went to the Supreme Court in January of 1997 and by that following June was ruled constitutional to uphold PAS as illegal (Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al., 1997). The penalty for any assistance in a ...
Showalter, J. S. (2012). The Law of Healthcare Administration (6th ed.). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.
The authors name is Audrey Young and she has received her bachelor’s degree in history from University of California, Berkeley, and an M.D. from the University of Washington, in Seattle. She is board certified in internal medicine and was Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Washington. She currently practices hospital medicine at Evergreen Hospital in Kirkland, Washington. She has also published several other books such as, House of Hope and Fear: Life in a Big City Hospital, published in 2009, and
Rehnquist, William H., Brennan, William J. "A Casebook on the Law and Society: What Rights
The United States v. Thomas J.L. Smiley et al.. (n.d) retrieved 1 February 2012, from Google Books Web Site:
The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School. Ed. Fray, William C. April 2000. Yale University. 1 May 2000. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wilson14.html)
Some medical facilities are not-for-profit organizations. They can be a charitable organization or an educational organization or both. There are other not-for-profit medical and public health programs that provide health care to many communities in this country. Some of the best hospitals in America are educational not-for-profit facilities. They work with some of the newest technology and some perform experimental procedures. Most public health programs are ran as not-for-profit organizations and operated for charitable and educational purposes. The not-for-profit organization is not liable to pay taxes under IRS code 501 (c)(3) (.org). This allows the organization to put its revenues back into the organization versus having to pay investors or owners. Unfortunately, over the past 20 years the amount of for-profit organizations has increased (Santa). The growing commercialization of health care has ethical implications and has become a matter of heated controversy (Santa). It’s becoming more difficult despite all the laws and regulations to protect patient’s privacy and confidentiality. An ethical implication that for-profits face is physicians receiving incentives for keeping cost down to increase profits. Some for-profits will encourage doctors to promote profit producing drugs, surgeries, tests and treatments. (Santa). Some of these same physicians may own the facility they operate which creates a huge conflict. On the other hand, financial incentives can cause physicians to delay important tests and treatments or to not perform them at all. In some cases patients are being discharged from hospitals before they are ready to go home (Orentlicher). On an ethical standpoint, the patient’s well being is put in jeopardy and the...
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
The staff, physicians and board members were not ready to fail. They didn’t want to abandon all those who depended on their services, but they also knew closing the hospital's doors would hurt
The distinction between an unfair prejudice petition and a statutory derivative action has always been in the nature of remedy sought by the claimant. This is arguably the point where a distinction is drawn as to whether a statutory derivative action or an unfair prejudice petition should be pursued. A d...