Health Care Law Negligence and Torts
Tort law objectives
The objective of these laws are to preserve peace between individuals by providing a substitute for retaliation. This includes culpability in which one finds fault for wrongdoing, deterrence of future wrong doing, and compensation for the injured party.
Duty of care
This requires an obligation to conform to a recognized standard of care, as well as proof of a relationship between the patient and defendant. ex: AMA --> created Standard of Care; ex: plaintiff must prove existence of legal relationship between patient and defendant, does not need to be formal; ex: duty must arise from special relationship: physician-patient and must exist at time of injury; ex: phone call: voluntary act of assuming care of patient; ex: statute or contract; must accept all patients in ER regardless of insurance
How to analysis any case:
What was the duty? Was there a breach? Causation? Damages?
Respondeat Superior Theory
a legal doctrine where in an employer is legally responsible for the actions or wrongdoings of their employees, if such actions occur under the scope of employment
Injury/Damages
actual damages must be established, if there are no injuries: monetary damages cannot be awarded to the plaintiff; includes physical harm, pain, suffering and loss of income or reputation
commission of an act
administer wrong medication, wrong dosage, wrong person, no patient consent, performing procedure on wrong patient or body part, performing wrong surgical procedure
prima facie case of negligence
all four elements of negligence must be presented for plaintiff to prove a case, plaintiff must prove them
Four elements of negligence
all four must be proven for a plaintiff to recover damages; includes duty of care, breach of duty, causation, injury or damages
negligence
an unintentional act or lack of that a reasonably prudent person would or would not do under the given circumstances, includes commission or omission of an act ex: speeding not under influence
Reasonably Prudent Person
applies to common law; nonexistent hypothetical person who is put forward as the community ideal of what would be considered reasonable behavior
Causation
departure from the standard of care must be the cause of the plaintiffs injury; injury must be foreseeable; requires that there be a reasonable, close and causal connection or relationship between the defendants negligent conduct and the resulting damages; most difficult element
Breach of Duty
deviation from the recognized standard of care; ex: failure to adhere to obligation; ex: failure to follow up; ex: failure to provide a safe environment
What is a negligent act?
duty + breach, also need causation and injury to equal negligence
How to establish causal relationship
eliminate causes other than the defendant's conduct
nonfeasance
failure to act when there is a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances; ex: failure to administer medications, failure to order tests or prescribe medications
omission of an act
failure to act; includes failure to give medication, failure to treat, failure to get complete history, failure to order diagnostic tests, failure to assess nutritional needs, failure to follow up on abnormal or critical test results
ordinary negligence
failure to do what a reasonably prudent person would or would not do under the circumstances
misfeasance
improper performance of an act, resulting in injury to another; ex: administering wrong dose of medication, wrong site of surgery
3 basic forms of negligence
malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance
slight negligence
minor deviation of what is expected under the circumstances
Standard of Care
nationwide standard based off what a reasonably prudent person would do or not do acting under similar circumstances; most courts apply. Set of licensed, accredited, government regulations that describe what conduct is expected of an individual in a given situation; professionals held to higher standard
malpractice
negligence or carelessness of a professional person, can lead to criminal negligence; 100,000 deaths per year as result of medical errors
What are the three categories of tort law?
negligence, intentional torts, strict liability-product liability
Burden of proof
on the plaintiff; civil case: scales only need be tipped a small amount to prove case (1 % of evidence); criminal case: scale must be all the way to the ground, need 100% evidence to convict
Foreseeability
part of causation element, the reasonable anticipation that harm or injury is likely to result from a commission or omission of an act
malfeasance
performance of an unlawful or improper act; ex: performing an abortion in the third trimester when this is prohibited by state law)
punitive damages
punish for egregious conduct by awarding damages for pain and suffering, something so outrageous, jail time, criminal
criminal negligence
reckless disregard for the safety of another; willful indifference to an injury that could follow an act (criminal intent) ex: drunk driving
proximate cause
relationship between breach of duty and injury
compensatory damages
seek to restore injured parties financial situation to match the parties financial state before suffering harm
Good Samaritan Laws
someone who renders aid in an emergency to someone who is injured on a voluntary basis; every state has its own laws; some states offer immunity; negligence can occur if injuries are made worse: once you ACT, you have created DUTY to act as a reasonable person
gross negligence
the intentional or wanton omission of required care or performance of an improper act
degrees of negligence
vary by state; includes slight, ordinary, and gross
Test for foreseeability
whether one of ordinary prudence and intelligence should have anticipated the danger to others caused by his or her negligent act, if unaccepted or unanticipated fact comes in to change everything: this breaks causal link