Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

Daniel Senior Living of Inverness I, LLC, d/b/a Danberry at Inverness successfully appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals a circuit court decision to affirm the issuance by the State Health Planning and Development Agency ("SHPDA") a certificate of need (CON) to STV One Nineteen Senior Living, LLC, d/b/a Somerby at St. Vincent's One Nineteen on an "emergency" basis. The Supreme Court granted Somerby's petition for review of the Court of Appeals, and finding no reversible error, affirmed that court's decision. View "Daniel Senior Living of Inverness I, LLC v. STV One Nineteen Senior Living, LLC" on Justia Law

James, a 60-year old with a lengthy criminal record and a history of psychiatric hospitalizations, has been held involuntarily at the Chester Mental Health Center since 2003, under successive involuntary commitment orders entered after he had reached the mandatory parole date on his criminal sentences. As the most recent order was about to expire, the Chester facility filed a petition under the Mental Health Code (405 ILCS 5/3-813) alleging that James continued to be subject to involuntary admission, with certificates from a psychiatrist and a psychologist, stating that James was “[a] person with mental illness who, because of his illness is reasonably expected to inflict serious physical harm upon himself or another in the near future … is unable to provide for his basic physical needs so as to guard himself from serious harm.” The petition was filed on April 29, 2010. The court set the matter for May 5, 2010. James’s attorney appeared on that date and obtained an order for independent evaluation. The independent doctor was prepared to testify that James should remain at Chester; on May 19 James’s attorney advised the court that his client had elected to have a jury. James agreed to wait unit the first available jury date in August. At trial on August 23, James expressed surprise that he had a court date and stated that he was not feeling any better. The jury returned a unanimous verdict that James was subject to involuntary admission. The appellate court held that under these particular circumstances, the delay between the jury request and the actual hearing was significant enough to be prejudicial to the patient and reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, stating that, given all of his circumstances, the delay following James’s request for a jury trial did not cause him any prejudice.View "In re James W." on Justia Law

Judith Burton filed a complaint against Dr. Philip Trover, a radiologist, and the Trover Clinic Foundation (TCF), Dr. Trover’s employer, alleging (1) Dr. Trover misread CT scans of her lungs, thereby delaying the diagnosis of her lung cancer, and (2) TCF was vicariously liable for Dr. Trover’s alleged negligence and was negligent itself in credentialing. Burton died before tried, and her Estate revived the complaint with respect to TCF, which impleaded Dr. Trover. A jury entered a verdict for Dr. Trover, and the trial court dismissed all of the Estate’s claims. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred by not allowing the Estate to cross-examine Dr. Trover regarding the status of his Kentucky medical license, and the error was not harmless. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its its discretion by excluding the license-status evidence, given the potential for confusing the issues to be tried and the strong likelihood that it would cause unfair prejudice.View "Trover v. Estate of Burton" on Justia Law

Lisa and Larry Walker filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. C. Lance Love, claiming medical negligence in connection with a thyroidectomy that Dr. Love had performed on Lisa. Three years later, Dr. Love moved for summary judgment because the Walkers had yet to identify an expert who would testify that Dr. Love had deviated from the applicable medical standard of care. The trial court granted the motion due to failure of proof. The Walkers filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the order, arguing that a surgical expert was not necessary. The trial court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to create a legitimate dispute about the need for an expert witness. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) summary judgment was appropriate as to the issue of whether Dr. Love’s performance during or after the surgery met the standard of care because the Walkers failed to timely present any expert testimony regarding the issue; but (2) summary judgment was not appropriate as to whether surgery was the correct response to Lisa’s medical diagnosis. Remanded.View "Love v. Walker" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a hospital staff physician, claimed the hospital’s decision to terminate his staff privileges was an act of retaliation for his reports of substandard performance by hospital nurses and thus a violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code 1278.5. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds that Plaintiff could not bring a civil suit under section 1278.5 unless he first succeeded by mandamus in overturning the hospital’s action. The appellate court held that Plaintiff could pursue his claims based on section 1278.5 even though he had not previously sought and obtained a mandamus judgment against the hospital’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a physician’s claim that a hospital decision to restrict or terminate his or her staff privileges was an act of retaliation for his or her whistleblowing in furtherance of patient care and safety need not seek and obtain a mandamus petition to overturn the decision before filing a civil action under section 1278.5.View "Fahlen v. Sutter Cent. Valley Hosps." on Justia Law

The State filed a third amended complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that public funds ported to certain unions under the Hawaii Public Employees Health Fund’s porting program exceeded the amounts allowed by law. The circuit court’s declaratory ruling interpreting the statutory phrase “actual monthly cost of the coverage” in Haw. Rev. Stat. 87 essentially ended the State’s case, and the court entered judgment against the State. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in interpreting “actual monthly cost of the coverage,” and (2) the State’s factual allegations did not constitute a violation of the provisions of chapter 87. View "State v. Haw. Gov’t Employees Ass’n" on Justia Law

Vera Boulier fell on the premises of Presque Isle Nursing Home (PINH), where Boulier was a resident. Boulier died from the injuries she sustained from the fall. The Estate of Boulier commenced an action against PINH for professional negligence in accordance with the Maine Health Security Act. A jury determined that PINH was not liable for Boulier’s death. The Estate appealed, arguing that the superior court erred in excluding evidence of remedial measures taken by PINH after Boulier’s fall and in rejecting the Estate’s proposed jury instruction on the theory of negligent communication. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court did not abuse its discretion by excluding, pursuant to Me. R. Evid. 407, the evidence of PINH’s subsequent remedial measures; and (2) the superior court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the issue of negligent communication because the evidence did not generate an instruction on the issue.View "Estate of Boulier v. Presque Isle Nursing Home" on Justia Law

After Daniel Nickerson suffered a fatal heart attack, Nickerson’s wife, Cecelia, as personal representative of Nickerson’s estate, filed professional negligence and wrongful death claims against Daniel’s doctor, Dr. Alan Carter, and vicarious liability claims against Mercy Primary Care, Dr. Carter’s employer. A jury found that Dr. Carter was negligent but not the legal cause of Daniel’s death. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s judgment, holding that the court erred in admitting the findings of a medical malpractice screening panel, as the panel chair’s consideration of evidence outside the record violated the Maine Health Security Act and Maine’s procedural rules. Remanded.View "Estate of Nickerson v. Carter" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff filed a health care liability action against Defendant, the General Assembly enacted Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-121 and -122, which implemented pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements. Plaintiff subsequently dismissed her original action and filed two successive actions. The second action did not comply with sections 29-26-121 and -122, but the third action complied with the statutes. Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate her second and third actions. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff’s second action should be dismissed for failure to comply with the notice and certificate of good faith requirements and that her third action should be dismissed based on the doctrine of prior suit pending. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted Defendant’s application for extraordinary appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her second action. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that Plaintiff’s third complaint was timely filed because Plaintiff properly provided pre-suit notice of her claim prior to filing her third action and was entitled to a 120-day extension in which to refile her complaint. Remanded.View "Cannon ex rel. Good v. Reddy" on Justia Law

In March 2010, Justyna Kunz was involved in a car accident with GEICO's insureds, Crystal, Joseph, and Elizabeth Kalish. Kunz received medical treatment at Athens Regional Medical Center; the Hospital Authority of Clarke County and Athens Regional Medical Center (collectively, "the Hospitals") filed three hospital liens. Kunz subsequently filed suit against the Kalishes. Kunz's attorney wrote a letter to the Kalishes' attorney accepting their $100,000 policy limit settlement offer. The settlement documents, signed in Fall 2010, expressly required Kunz to satisfy the hospital liens out of the settlement fund and constituted a "general[ ] release ... from all legal and equitable claims of every kind and nature." The liens were never satisfied. The Court of Appeals held that, under OCGA 44–14–473 (a), the Hospitals were barred by a one-year statute of limitations from filing suit against GEICO to collect on the hospital liens. The Hospitals appealed the appellate court's decision. Finding that the appellate court erred in arriving at its conclusion, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Hospital Authority of Clarke County v. GEICO General Insurance Co." on Justia Law