IHP 420 Describe The Case Worksheet

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

IHP 420

Subject

Law

Date

Jun 22, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by maliniroopram

IHP 420 Describe the Case Worksheet Issue (What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court?) ● Who are the parties in this case: plaintiff and defendant? Plaintiff: Alla K. Popovich, as wife and Guardian Ad Litem for Aleksandr M. Popovich Defendant: Allina Health System ● What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court? Alla Popovich, the wife and guardian ad litem for her husband Aleksandr Popovich, filed a medical malpractice action against Allina Health System, the hospital where Aleksandr Popovich received treatment. Aleksandr Popovich suffered a stroke after receiving negligent medical care in the emergency rooms of Unity Hospital and Mercy Hospital. The hospital owned and operated both hospitals, but the emergency room doctors and radiologists involved in his care were not Allina employees. The doctors working in the emergency rooms were employees of Emergency Physicians Professional Association (EPPA), an entity contracted with Allina to provide doctors for emergency departments located within Allina-owned facilities. The radiologists that reviewed images of Aleksandr Popovich's brain were employees of Suburban Radiologic Consultants (SRC), a separate entity with a contract to provide radiology services to patients at Unity and Mercy Hospitals. Alla Popovich sued Allina, EPPA, and the emergency room physicians for medical malpractice in Hennepin County District Court. An amended complaint added a claim against SRC based on the alleged negligence of its employee, the unnamed radiologist who reviewed Mr. Popovich's first CT scan at Unity Hospital. Allina moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). A divided court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims against Allina. ● Is the court deciding a question of fact —i.e., are the parties in dispute over The court is deciding on the question of law. The main question at hand is whether the hospital should be held accountable for the acts of

IHP 420 Describe the Case Worksheet Issue (What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court?) what happened? Or is it a question of law —i.e., is the court unsure which rule to apply to these facts? independent contractor doctors working in its emergency room under the legal doctrine of apparent authority. This is not a disagreement over particular facts; rather, it is an issue of legal interpretation and policy. ● Which facts of the case raise issues? The fact of the case that raises issue is whether hospitals should be shielded from vicarious responsibility when a plaintiff tries to hold a hospital accountable for the medical negligence of an independent contractor on the grounds of apparent authority. ● What are the nonissues ? Though this case appears to be primarily concerned with the legal principle of apparent authority and the hospital's liability, non-issues may include specifics of the medical care given to Aleksandr Popovich. ● Other The important distinction between vicarious responsibility theories is ignored in the Court of Appeals' in McElwain judgment. The case dealt with a hospital's possible vicarious liability for the alleged malpractice of a doctor who was employed as an independent contractor in the hospital's emergency room. The hospital said that since the doctor was not an employee of the hospital, it could not be held vicariously accountable under the respondeat superior or apparent authority theories. Reference: Alla K. Popovich, as wife and guardian ad litem for Aleksandr M ... (n.d.). https://cases.justia.com/minnesota/supreme-court/2020-a18-1987.pdf?ts=1596215417

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help