HEALTHCARE LAW 7
Drs.Foote and Amkles’ counsel should consider if Smallville GeneralHospital had established non-compete law policy. BewRocat, thehospital’s administrator, could not withdraw his employees`privileges if they did not sign a non-compete contract. Second, theattorney should consider the state policy regarding competitionpolicies. Some states have lenient regulations that do not restrictemployees from establishing competing businesses. However, thecounsel should evaluate whether the doctors had signed aconfidentiality agreement that would restrict them from disclosingconfidential information that they have acquired when working in thehospital. In this case, the employees are operating an ambulatoryservice, which is different from the in-house service that theiremployers provide.
Theattorney should determine if the employees have breached theircontract through establishing a service intended to enhance thehealth service of their customers. The employer could not withholdthe benefit of the doctors if they had not signed a forfeitureagreement. The purpose of this document is restricting employees fromengaging tasks that would cause conflict of interest. For example,the doctors were engaging in a private practice that could compromisetheir focus on their clinical work. In such a case, the employer canforfeit their benefits since they purpose of the privileges isensuring that the professionals do not engage invest in businessesthat could compromise their loyalty towards their employers’ work.
Drs.Foote and Amkles had invented a new service that had made accessingpodiatrists’ services convenient from many places. In the UnitedStates’ jurisdiction, can enforce a non-compete policy if anemployee’s venture has potential to infringe on the businessinterests of the customers. This means that the attorney will have toevaluate whether the doctors’ new business has infringed on thebusiness concepts of their employers. In case the employees are usingdistinct business concepts from their employers, and they did notsign an invention assignment policy requiring them to surrender thedevelopments to their employers, the attorney can argue that theirprivileges should be restored for they have not breached thecontract.
Thefirst possible cause of action by Ms. Ima Gona’s against Dr. MarkMewerds and Dr. Bill Max, is overlooked diagnosis. This is when apatient is not prescribed the medication that successfully addressesthe illness. The doctors failed to diagnose a disease whose symptomsthey should be familiar with by overlooking the need of properdiagnosis of the lump. This could have established the cause of thelump was cancer and hence proper treatment could have been offered.Instead, the doctor referred to it as a mere lump “hard lump on herarm. Dr. Dewey Wright continues with the misdiagnosis error and goeson to remove the lump without diagnosis until after he had it removedthat is when he conducted the biopsy to establish that the lump wascancerous.
Asa result of overlooked diagnosis, the patient can further claimcompensation for her medical bills incurred, and the bills to beincurred as she treats the rest of the body where cancer had spread,any lost wages or salary that was lost during the period and in thefuture of her further treatment . In addition she can claimcompensation for transportation costs incurred from home to hospitaland future transport costs to be incurred during the oncomingtreatment.
Thepatient can further charge Dr. Bill Max for compensation on medicalnegligence that caused emotional distress when she realized that heconducted surgery on the wrong arm and caused physical harm. Thisindicates that he did not perform enough diagnosis to establish thecorrect arm that surgery could have been conducted.
Thepatient can sue for compensation for delayed diagnosis of a lump onher arm. Cancer is a life threatening disease and the doctors failedto adhere to a reasonable standard of care thus deprived the patientof early treatment. The same cause applies to Dr. Bill Max. Uponreceiving the patient he does not conduct his own independentdiagnosis but relies on Dr. Mark Mewerds report.Further, whateverthe doctor did failed to meet the standard of other practitioners inthe same field and specifically, they are required to aggressivelytest, identify and treat all potential symptoms of cancer and otherlife-threatening illnesses at the earliest possible date
Further,she can claim compensation for the emotional distress due to the fearexperienced when she learnt that her cancer had spread to other partsof the body.
TheFalse Claims Act is an American Law that renders liability on personsand companies who fleece government programmes. First, Daisy Grontleshall be treated as the whistleblower for exposing a suit on behalfof the government. The violations may include breaking the law,committing fraud or corruption. She will be responsible for providingand supplying substantive support in the assembling of underneathevidence to the research integrity officer. As a whistleblower, shewill attract such rights as protection from retaliation by YMC and anoption to initiate a quitam lawsuit on behalf of the government. Thiswill entitle her to an award of between 15 to 30 percent if and afterthe government recovers money from YMC, reinstatement in her jobdouble back pay and compensation for any special damages includinglitigation costs and attorney fees. Further, she will bear theliability to proof that the violations were committed not more thansix years to the date she reported or three years since when thegovernment could have known about the violation. In addition, sheshall be liable to provide proof of the validity of the informationfailure to which she shall be liable to a fine of 6000-12000dollarsper claim. If she is awarded for damages and it’s later realizedshe provided false information, she is liable to pay back an amountof two to three times the amount she obtained false fully.
Iffound to have made a false claim against the government, YCA shall besubject to significant penalties. The penalties shall not be lessthan 5000 dollars and not more than 10,000 dollars. Further, theyshall be in charge of three times the amount of damages incurred bythe government. They will be responsible for providing proof that theviolations were unwilling full and unintentional.
Inthe lawsuit that Mr. Funder Mentalis sued the SGH, the latter’sliability is providing compulsory health care to a child against thewish of his parent. Mentalis informed the physician that his faithrestricted his son from receiving formal treatment. The law restrictshealth care experts from providing healthcare services to patientsagainst their will, or if the treatment poses health risks to apatient. However, SGH requested an order from the relevant authorityprior to conducting the transfusion operation.
Anotherliability facing the SGH is filing to disconnect the boy from lifesupporting machines. The family provided evidence that their daughterhad requested that her life-support system should be disconnected atthe earliest time possible. Mentalis claimed that the hospital wasliable for his son’s death because he could identify commonproblems arising from such challenges. The hospital will have achallenge to prove that Mentalis’s death was beyond the physician’scapability to save him.
SGHwill also have a liability of proving to the court that it tookmeasures that were intended to prevent the child’s death. Thephysicians will have a liability of proving that they to thenecessary precautions to prevent the death of Mentalis’ son.
Thisis a case of sexual harassment at the workplace characterized by Dr.Bill Max unwanted sexual advances to Purdy Singh, the Nurse Managerat Smallville General Hospital. Purdy Singh cause of action againstDr. Bill Max is to sue him for hostile work environment sexualharassment. On the other hand, Purdy Singh, can also sue SmallvilleGeneral Hospital for failing to maintain an anti-harassment policyand to take any reasonable steps to avoid harassment. BewRocat, thehospital`s administrator, can also be sued for taking no action afterthe plaintiff reported the matter to her. To prevail on this claim,Purdy Singh the plaintiff must establish that she suffered unwelcomedsexual harassment and that she was harassed because of her gender.Alternatively, defense available to Smallville General Hospital isthat Dr. Bill Max is a non-employee. However, she has a cause ofaction against the hospital, and the court can rule in her favorsince the employer knew about the harassment and failed to take thecorrective action. Defense available to Dr. Max is to show that theplaintiff, Purdy Singh welcomed the alleged harassment behavior, orshe was not offended by the action. On the other hand, BewRocat canclaim that the conduct at hand was an isolated case and that theadministration could not get involved in a personal matter betweenthe staff and a non-employee. In summary, Purdy Singh shouldestablish a hostile working environment and prove that the employerfailed to prevent or respond to the behavior. Furthermore, since thehospital failed to take any steps to combat the harassment, and thenit is negligent for failing to take any action on Dr. Bill Maxconduct.