Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

Johanna Hicks died from an accidental overdose of her medications. Hicks’ estate filed suit against the doctor who treated Hicks for severe chronic pain for negligently causing Hicks’ death and filed suit against the doctor’s employer, claiming it should be held vicariously liable for the doctor’s negligence. A jury found that the doctor was not negligent in his treatment of Johanna and returned a defense verdict. On appeal, the estate argued that the district court erred by permitting the doctor and his codefendant to introduce the testimony of two expert witnesses on the doctor’s adherence to the appropriate standard of care for practitioners of pain medicine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the estate failed to preserve for appellate review the issue regarding the admissibility of the testimony of the two standard of care experts.View "Hicks v. Zondag" on Justia Law

Defendant Micah Smith was charged with unauthorized participation in a medical assistance program. The State maintained Smith was excluded from participating in medical assistance programs through the administrative process by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) for various allegations of fraud and misconduct. After that exclusion, Smith continued to serve as the billing agent for Medicaid providers, despite his exclusion. Smith filed a motion to quash in which he challenged La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(4) as overbroad because it "prohibit[ed] a substantial amount of free speech and actions which would be protected under the First Amendment." He filed a second motion to quash, challenging La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(3) as "so sweeping in its proscription that it denie[d] a wide range of protected benefits to which a majority of Americans are entitled." The district court denied Smith's first motion by granted the second. The State appealed. After review of the district court record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's declaration that La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(3) was unconstitutional, and remanded the case for further proceedings.View "Louisiana v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendants Alabama Psychiatric Services, P.C. ("APS"), and Managed Health Care Administration, Inc. ("MHCA"), appealed the trial court's order denying their motions for a judgment as a matter of law. Although the jury entered a verdict for APS and MHCA, they nonetheless argued that two claims that were ultimately tried should not have been submitted to the jury. APS and MHCA also appealed the trial court's order granting a motion for a new trial filed by plaintiff A Center for Eating Disorders, L.L.C. ("ACED"). ACED opened its doors under the name Alabama Center for Eating Disorders and using the acronym ACED. Shortly thereafter, APS filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against ACED, arguing that ACED's name infringed on the name of APS's eating-disorder center. ACED voluntarily changed its name to A Center for Eating Disorders so that it could continue to use the acronym ACED, and the trademark-infringement lawsuit was dismissed. After MHCA refused to allow ACED to apply as a services provider for the network of mental-health professionals treating patients insured by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama ("Blue Cross"), ACED filed its own seven-count lawsuit against APS, MHCA, and Blue Cross. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order denying APS's and MHCA's motions for a judgment as a matter of law as to ACED's intentional interference-with-business-relations and conspiracy claims, and the Court reversed the order granting ACED's motion for a new trial. View "Alabama Psychiatric Services, P.C. v. A Center for Eating Disorders, L.L.C. " on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Doctor and Doctor’s employer (Employer), alleging that Doctor touched her inappropriately and made sexually charged comments during her office visits. Plaintiff settled with Doctor, and the case proceeded against Employer. The district court held that Plaintiff’s claims against Employer were barred by Kan. Stat. Ann. 40-3403(h), which past decisions of the Supreme Court interpreted to cover a covered health care provider’s vicarious liability and any other responsibility, including independent or direct liability, for claims caused by the professional services of another health care provider. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the lower courts erred in relying on the cases interpreting the statute because the cases were wrongly decided, were distinguishable, or had been effectively overruled. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 40-3403(h) barred Employer’s liability, and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.View "Cady v. Schroll" on Justia Law

When Rita Licata was transferred to a nursing facility operated by Defendant Rita’s son Salvatore signed an agreement with the facility to arbitrate disputes arising from Rita’s stay at the facility. Salvatore signed the agreement in the space provided for the resident’s “authorized representative.” Rita suffered personal injuries at the nursing facility resulting in her death. Salvator filed a complaint as administrator of Rita’s estate against Defendant for, inter alia, wrongful death and negligence. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and to compel arbitration. The motion judge denied the motion, concluding that Salvatore lacked authority to execute the arbitration agreement on Rita’s behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Salvatore lacked authority to execute the agreement on Rita’s behalf; and (2) the arbitration agreement did not otherwise bind Rita’s estate.View "Licata v. GGNSC Malden Dexter LLC" on Justia Law

Barbara Johnson, in her capacity as her husband Dalton’s health care agent, signed an agreement with a nursing facility to arbitrate disputes arising from Dalton’s stay at the facility. While a resident of the facility, Dalton suffered burns and later died. The administrators of Dalton’s estate, filed a complaint against nursing home defendants and others, arguing that Barbara, as Dalton’s health care agent, did not have the authority to execute the arbitration agreement on his behalf. A superior court judge entered an order compelling mediation or arbitration. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court, holding that a health care agent’s decision to enter into an arbitration agreement is not a health care decision under the health care proxy statute, and therefore, an agreement to arbitrate all claims arising out of a principal’s stay in a nursing facility does not bind the principal where the agreement was entered into solely by a health care agent under the authority of a health care proxy. View "Johnson v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

When Dr. David Roberts performed amniocentesis on Plaintiff’s mother, who was pregnant with Plaintiff, bleeding occurred. Complications arose from the unsuccessful amniocentesis, and Plaintiff was born with damaged kidneys and cerebral palsy. Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment against Dr. Roberts and other defendants for medical malpractice. Plaintiff asserted that her claim was not covered by Virginia’s Medical Malpractice Act because she was not a “patient” as defined by the Act where she was not a “natural person” at the time of the treatment, and therefore, her claim was not subject to the Act’s statutory cap on damages. The jury returned a $7 million verdict in Plaintiff’s favor. The trial court reduced the verdict, holding that the cap applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Virginia’s statutory cap on damages applied to Plaintiff’s cause of action because Plaintiff became a “patient” when she was born alive, and therefore, her claim fell within the Act. View "Simpson v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Tanisha Bates was indicted for arson. The circuit court found Bates not guilty by reason of insanity. Subsequently, the circuit court concluded that Bates was in need of inpatient hospitalization and committed her to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err when it determined that the particular circumstances warranted Bates’ commitment to inpatient hospitalization rather than to conditional release because it correctly applied the standards articulated in Va. Code Ann. 19.2-182.3 and 19.2-182.7 to the present case.View "Bates v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was being treated at a private medical facility, a nurse employed by the clinic committed an unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff’s confidential health information. Plaintiff filed this action in federal court against Defendants, various affiliated entities that allegedly owned or otherwise controlled the clinic. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all eight of Plaintiff’s claims. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all but one of Plaintiff’s causes of action, reserving decision on Plaintiff’s claim of breach of fiduciary duty. In a separate opinion, the Second Circuit found the nurse’s actions were not foreseeable to Defendants nor taken within the scope of her employment. The court, however, certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding Defendants’ liability where respondeat superior liability is absent. The Court of Appeals answered that, under New York law, the common law right of action for breach of the fiduciary duty of confidentiality for the unauthorized disclosure of medical information may not run directly against medical corporations when the employee responsible for the breach acts outside the scope of her employment. View "Doe v. Guthrie Clinic, Ltd." on Justia Law

Steven L. was ordered involuntarily committed to a hospital for up to ninety days. During the term of commitment, the hospital applied for an order directing Steven’s involuntary admission to a progressive treatment program. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court ordered Steven admitted to the progressive treatment program for twelve months. The superior court affirmed the judgment. Steven appealed to the Supreme Court. Before the appendix, appellee’s brief, and reply brief were due in the appeal, Steven was discharged when the progressive treatment program’s term expired. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because Steven had been discharged and the progressive treatment program had expired and because none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. View "In re Steven L." on Justia Law