The Treatment Relationship: Formation and Termination

The Duty to Treat-Hurley v. EddingfieldPage 1 !

What

are the facts of Hurley v. Eddingfield?

Legal duty vs. ethical duty (see note 1, pg. 128)

Suppose

the doctor had een in the patient!s "#$. #ight this have %ade a difference? What does this case tell us a out the lin&age et'een availa le care and coverage?

The Duty to TreatWilmington General Hospital v. Manlove-Page 121

What are the facts of Wilmington General Hospital v. Manlove?

(id the nurse provide a sufficient )ustification for refusing treat%ent? What significance %ight attach if, contrary to the facts, the nurse had ta&en the child!s te%perature, felt his forehead or loo&ed do'n his throat? What significance attaches to the fact this is a private hospital?
*%ergency vs. non+e%ergent care #ust a private hospital provide e%ergency care?

Why %ight doctors and hospitals e held to a different standard?

See note ,, pg. 12-

The Duty to Treat

Should

the %oral o ligation to rescue in e%ergencies rise to the level of a legal duty such that a hospital has a duty to treat?

The Duty to Treat--Wideman v. Shallowford Community Hospital-Page 12

What

are the facts of this case?

.s their a general constitutional right to %edical treat%ent? /re their circu%stances 'here such a right %ay arise?
0special

or other custodial relationship

.f

there is a right to e%ergency health care, 'hy not a right to all health care?

"ummary of #otes: Pg. 1 $

1o duty to treat rule consistent 'ith co%%on la' no duty to rescue. #any states have 2ood Sa%aritan statutes to reverse this rule in li%ited circu%stances Spells of illness doctrine3 $nce treat%ent of illness stops, ne' relationship %ust co%%ence (uty %ay e4ist as a result of contract3

With hospital (on call doc)! "#$ or other insurer

"ummary of #otes: Pg. 1 $

While private hospital li&e'ise %ay have no duty to treat3

.f it %aintains an e%ergency roo%, or .s re5uired y la' to have one, (uty can e4ist. .t eing a specialty hospital 0no roo% at the inn6

"ospitals duty to treat %ay e li%ited as result of3

So%e courts treat hospitals as 05uasi+pu lic institutions 'ith a duty to treat

The Duty to Treat%urditt v. DHH"Page 1&'

What are the facts of this case? What does *#7/L/ re5uire?

Screening Sta ili8ation97ransfer

What does the court hold? #ust futile care e provided even if necessary to sta ili8e?

:a y ; case (pgs. 1<<+1<=)

>an a hospital avoid *#7/L/ y si%ply refusing to have the a% ulance co%e to its e%ergency care unit?

(oes hospital o'n the a% ulance #iller and ?ohnson

E(T)*) "ummary

/dopted ecause of 'ide+spread patient du%ping ut not li%ited to patient du%ping (indigent patient) cases Screen, and if e%ergency e4ists, sta ili8e *#7/L/ doesn!t penali8e hospitals that prevent patients fro% reaching e%ergency roo%

(uty to treat egins at the e%ergency roo% door, ut

.f patient is in the hospital!s o'n a% ulance (""S regulations suggest hospitals can divert only if it 0does not have the staff or facilities to accept any additional e%ergency situations.6

E(T)*) "ummary
*#7/L/

violations can result in loss of #edicare 5ualification @ailure to treat 'here duty to treat e4ists can result in oth

*#7/L/ violations #alpractice

+rongful Reasons to Re,e-t Patients

1ondiscri%ination

principle relating to race, se4, religion, disa ility.

+rongful Reasons to Re,e-t Patients ." v. .niversity Hospital-Page 1/!

What are the facts of this case? What is the asis of the govern%ent!s 0other'ise 5ualified6 clai%? "o' does the court respond?

(o you agree 'ith the court!s 0other'ise 5ualified6 argu%ent?

What a out its argu%ent relating to the co%ple4ity of %edical decision %a&ing? What a out is use of legislative history?

+rongful Reasons to Re,e-t Patients ." v. .niversity Hospital-Page 1/!

What does the court hold? /ct doesn!t apply to %edical decisions /ct doesn!t apply to parental decisions affecting children (iscri%ination prohi ited only 'here handicap is unrelated to, and thus i%proper to consideration of, the services in 5uestion, pg. 1=2 Where the handicapping condition is related to the condition to e treated, it 'ill rarely, if ever, e possi le to say 'ith certainty that a particular condition 'as discri%inatory.

+rongful Reasons to Re,e-t Patients." v. .niversity Hospital

What

a out loo&ing at relatedness as the a ility to enefit fro% treat%ent?

+rongful Reasons to Re,e-t Patients Glan! v. "erni#$- Page 1 %

What

are the facts of this case? (o you thin& doctors should e per%itted to consider the ris& to the%selves 'hen considering 'hether or not to treat disa led patient?

+rongful Reasons to Re,e-t Patients-+al0er v. Pier-e-Page 1/$

What

are the facts of this case?

"tru-ture of the Treatment Relationship1lanton2 Reynolds and *yon-- Pages 13&13$

What

is the the%e of this case and Aeynolds and Lyon? What are the facts of this case and 'hat does the court hold? .s it possi le to create the doctor+patient relationship y a telephone call?

"ummary of #otes2 Pg. 13$

So%e courts %odify the no doctor+patient relationship fro% cur side consults y holding there is a duty (and potential lia ility) to the e4tent of the involve%ent in the consultation 2enerally, physicians doing e%ploy%ent or insurance physicals do not esta lish a doctor+patient relationship

*4cept for findings posing an i%%ediate danger *4a%iner volunteers treat%ent advice

(octor %ay have 0duty6 to third parties (not their patients) that if reached can result in lia ility

Bicti%s of torts y patients @ailure to 'arn patient of har% to others through contact

*imiting the "-ope of the Treatment RelationshipTun0l v. Regents of the .niversity of 1alifornia-Page 1'

What are the facts of this case and 'hat does the court hold? /re there circu%stances 'here courts have upheld 'aivers? Cnder 'hat circu%stances %ight a physician li%it his9her scope of services? .s it 'orse if so%e physicians are forced into another specialty if they are %orally opposed to a ortion or if so%e 'o%en are una le to o tain an a ortion 'hen they 'ant one?

Terminating the Treatment Relationship Ri-0s v. %udge and Payton v. +eaver Page 1'' 4 1$!
What

is the principal point of the la' of a andon%ent? What is the underlying pre%ise of the doctrine? What is the procedure to acco%plish%ent a proper a andon%ent? What e4plains the different outco%es in these cases?