Bradfield v. Roberts paved the way for what is now known as the Hill-Burton Cases. Although it has its shortcomings, it appears to have put an end to church-state litigation for quite a few eras, when it comes to the hospital field. It was in 1946, that Congress implemented an ambitious program to be used for building hospitals, named the Hill-Burton Act. The Hill- Burton Act made federal construction funds accessible, through the states, to public, as well as, private hospitals. The mixing of federal funds to private hospitals gave way to an abundance of lawsuits that challenged the practices of private hospitals on the ground that receiving of federal funds had made them “public” institutions and that they must now respect the standards of due process and non-discrimination as would all other public entities have to.
One of the initial lawsuits was Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, a private hospital, in which African-American physicians took legal action against under the 1871 Civil Rights Act, for depriving him of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws,” by refusing to grant him staff privileges at what was at that time an all-white institution.
To prove there is a case under Section 1983, it would have to be proven that the claim of denial of constitutional rights was caused by action “under color of state law.” It was concluded by the Fourth Circuit that Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital had, by pursuing and obtaining Hill-Burton funds, as part of a state proposal to produce and sustain a racially segregated “separate but equal” dual hospital system, performed in the capacity of color of state law, and as a result it was bound to the requiremen...
... middle of paper ...
...love of one’s neighbor according to measure of man’s natural self- affirmation (Tillich, 1954, p. 4).
I am in full agreement with the case law. Once Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital sought after and received government funding. They are to be held to the same standards as any other business or organization, public or private. It is fair to say that Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital benefited from grants comprised of tax funds. These tax funds were paid by all citizens, and the hospital used the facilities built with these funds to impose its own doctrines upon patients and physicians who did not share them.
Works Cited
Showalter, J. S. (2012). The Law of Healthcare Administration (6th ed.). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.
The Holy Bible: King James Version. (2010).
Tillich, P. (1954). Love, Power, and Justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
The Tucker vs. Walgreen Company was a nationwide known class action case. It fell into the category of race discrimination. This cases was brought to the attention of the law by African Americans who were employed at this retail and pharmacy store. This pledged that they were being discriminated to by the following acts:failure to move up in positions (promotion), dieing them the opportunity to apply for assistant manager and manager, and being assigned to an undesirable store for an extended period of time compared to whites. They filed a class action lawsuit with the demand of compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Along with these demands, the plaintiffs desired class certification for those who have been previously affected by the defendant’s discriminatory acts as well as any who will suffer from them in the future.
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
Segregation in itself is an issue of legality, but this case especially was an unfair One. When segregation was the law it was brought up in the courts because segregation itself may clash with the fourteenth amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" (Compton's 6). This amendment states that all people born or naturalized in the USA are citizens. This would mean that Blacks are citizens and have just as many rights as any other citizen, but white lawyers and court officials found ways around this. They said that being a citizen doesn't have anything to do with equal rights between different races (Tourolaw). "The judge at the trial was John Howard Ferguson, a lawyer from Massachusetts who had previously declared the Separate Car Act `unconstitutional on trains that traveled through several states'. In Plessy's case, however, he decided that the state could choose to regulate railroad companies that operated only within Louisiana" (Virtualscholar1 1).
The case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), is a rather unusual Supreme Court case. It deals with a man who was denied admission to medical school and subsequently sued the school claiming that he was unfairly discriminated against due to his race. The twist: the man was white.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, most commonly known by its initials HIPAA, was enacted by Congress then signed by President Bill Clinton on August 21, 1996. This act was put into place in order to regulate the privacy of patient health information, and as an effort to lower the cost of health care, shape the many pieces of our complicated healthcare system. This act also protects individuals from losing their health insurance if they lose their employment or choose to switch employers. . Before HIPAA there was no standard or consistency for the enforcement of the privacy for patients and the rules and regulations varied by state and organizations. HIPAA virtually affects everybody within the healthcare field including but not limited to patients, providers, payers and intermediaries. Although there are many parts of the HIPAA act, for the purposes of this paper we are going to focus on the two main sections and the four objectives of HIPAA, a which are to improve the portability (the capability of transferring from one employee to another) of health insurance, combat fraud, abuse, and waste in health insurance, to promote the expanded use of medical savings accounts, and to simplify the administration of health insurance.
In 1985, Christine J. Amos, Judy Bawden, Deniece Kanon, April Joy Reding, Arthur Frank Mason, Ruth Arriola, Shellen Adamson, and Ralph L. Whitaker sued The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for discrimination based on religion due to being fired for being unable to or unwilling to qualify for a “temple recommend”, in Utah District Court and “won”. By “won” it is meant the court decided, based on the three prong test[1] set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, that § 702 of Title VII of The Civil Rights act of 1964 was unconstitutional when applied to non-religious duties within a non profit business owned by a religious organization, or an organization which heavily relied on funding from a religious corporation.
Longest Jr., B.B (2009) Health Policy making in the United States (5th Edition). Chicago, IL: HAP/AUPHA.
In the Lemon vs Kurtzman case Pennsylvania and Rhode Island provided state aid to church-related elementary and secondary schools to help fund school programs. A group of individual taxpayers and religious liberty organizations were outraged and took this issue to court, testing the “constitutionality” of the funding program. They claimed that, since the program primarily aided religious schools, it violated the Establishment Clause. In an equally agreed decision, the Court decided that both programs violate the Establishment Clause because they create excessive problems and dispute between a religious school and the states. In a similar case, the Reynolds vs the United States court case Reynolds was a married man living in
* Longley, Robert. "Chruch and State: How the Court Decides." U.S. Gov Info/Resources n.d. 12 Nov. 2001 .
Facts: Alton Lemon took David Kurtzman to court with the support of a number of interest groups including the Pennsylvania Civil liberties union and the NAACP in hopes the court would find a law in Pennsylvania unconstitutional. This said law, the Nonpublic Elementary and secondary education act, had allowed Kurtzman to “purchase” educational services for private schools, and could use tax money to reimburse private school for the cost of salaries as well as books and supplies. The state agreed to provide funding as long as the money went towards secular expenses, meaning the books and supplies that were meant for teaching the same courses that were taught in public schools. In order to receive money, there had to be records of secular expenses and non secular expenses. This act began to be able to be put to use in July of 1968. Ultimately, “96% of the nonpublic school students attended religious schools, primarily roman catholic”(Epstein. Walker 147). In Rhode Island, there was a similar law, the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act, where 15% of the teachers salaries were funded to contribute to private schools, as long as no religious classes were taught. It turned out though that 95% of the
Sisters of Charity and for health care are for health care institutions to ensure all charity criteria’s have been met for tax-exempt purposes. Anti-trust laws are applied to some court cases, but all health care organizations must get familiar with statutes, anti-trust laws, and tax-exempt requirements for the 21st century. The other important aspect is competition is a prominent factor in the health care world as well as for markets, to decrease health care costs. Controlling costs will help prevent monopolizing of organizations for the long run in health care organizations. All in all, it’s expected that tax and federal issues will arise from different health care institutions. An eye-opening and relevant case such as Anchorage Area Borough v. Sisters of Charity is a learning lesson about taxation and exemption. Whether charitable organizations, property space, or tax exemption, it’s all of major importance to state and federal tax assessors for law
There was a big change in 1963 when the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright transformed the way state courts applied the right to counsel to indigent defend...
Throughout the 1950s, the NAACP with the help of Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall pursued lawsuits against the “separate but equal” policy instated by the Plessy v. Ferguson case. For years, colleges and universities in which there was no African American counterpart avoided court orders to admit black students by hastily setting up “equal” counterparts. But in 1950, the Supreme Court ordered that a black student be admitted to the University of Texas Law School, despite the fact that the state “…had established a “school” for him in the basement” (Foner 953). The court declared that there was no way that this “school” was equal, and demanded that the student be admitted to the law school, sparking an era that called for desegregation. Later, in 1954, a landmark decision came from the Supreme Court as a result of the Brown v. BOE case. In the early 1950s, a man named Oliver Brown went to court to fight that fact that his daughter “…was forced to walk across dangerous railroad tracks each morning rather than being allowed to attend a nearby school restricted to whites” (Foner 953). The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and on May 17, 1954, the court declared that “Segregation in public education…violated the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment” (Foner 954), arguing that the
BLOODSWORTH v. STATE, 76 Md. App. 23 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland July 8, 1988).
This case is about getting racial fairness. There were a girl named Linda Brown, her friends, her sister, and other black students that wasn’t allowed to enter the white separated schools. NAACP filed a lawsuit on Linda and her group (because they were black) called Oliver Brown. They knew that their XIV amendment rights was excluded by separate schools. At the supreme court it was considered that the separation of schools (for the blacks and whites) was unconstitutional, because it insulted the Equal Protection Clause of the XIV amendment.