Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Texas passed a "tort reform" law taking effect on September 1, 2003. [43] The act limited non-economic damages (e.g., damages for pain and suffering) in most malpractice cases to $250,000 across all healthcare providers and $250,000 for healthcare facilities, with a limit of two facilities per claim.
In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Geiger, saying unintentional malpractice torts were dischargeable by bankruptcy (that this instance did not fall under the exception provided for in §523(a)(6)), and thus upheld the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976): A case in which a patient told his psychiatrist that he had thoughts of killing a girl. Later he did kill the girl. A leading case in defining the standard of the duty of care, and the duty to warn. Trimarco v. Klein, Ct. of App. of N.Y., 56 N.Y.2d 98, 436 N.E.2d 502 ...
Sun Hudson case: United States Texas 2004 An infant is removed from life support against his mother's wishes. Baby K: United States Virginia: 1992 The mother of an anencephalic baby wishes to keep the child on life support perpetually. Jesse Koochin: United States Salt Lake City: 2004 Parents wish to keep a child on life support. Spiro ...
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient.
Medical malpractice is a legal cause of action that occurs when a medical or health care professional, through a negligent act or omission, deviates from standards in their profession, thereby causing injury or death to a patient. [1] The negligence might arise from errors in diagnosis, treatment, aftercare or health management.
The effective result of this decision was that the THCLA, which held Case Management and Utilization Review decisions by Managed Care entities like CIGNA and Aetna to a legal duty of care according to the laws of The State of Texas could not be enforced in the case of Health Benefit plans provided through private employers, because the Texas ...
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark [2] [3] [4] United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, [5] [6] and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most ...