This answer is offered for informational purposes only. It is not offered as, and does not constitute, legal advice. Laws vary widely from state to state. You should rely only on the advice given to you during a personal consultation by a local attorney who is thoroughly familiar with state laws and the area of practice in which your concern lies. In the event that you have follow up questions, please post them directly on this site. This does not create an attorney-client relationship and the attorney does not read unsolicited emails. Thank You.
According to the act, when the patient arrives at the ER or urgent care center, the hospital must determine whether the patient’s condition constitutes an emergency. If it does, the hospital must make all reasonable efforts to stabilize the patient. If a hospital fails to comply with the act, the patient may sue the hospital for both the monetary equivalent of the harm caused by the failure, and for an additional penalty of up to $50,000.
The Court has found that somewhat different rules may apply to Congressional efforts to subject the states to suit in the domain of federal bankruptcy law. In Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, the Court held that state sovereign immunity was not implicated by the exercise of in rem jurisdiction by bankruptcy courts in voiding a preferential transfer to a state. Justice Stevens, writing for a majority of five (including Justice O'Connor, in one of her last cases before retirement, and Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer), referred to the rationale of an earlier bankruptcy decision, but relied more broadly on the nature of the bankruptcy power vested in Congress under Article I. "The question", he stated, "[was] not whether Congress could 'abrogate' state sovereign immunity in the Bankruptcy Act (as Congress had attempted to do); rather, because the history and justification of the Bankruptcy Clause, as well as legislation enacted immediately following ratification, demonstrate that [the Bankruptcy Clause] was intended not just as a grant of legislative authority to Congress, but also to authorize limited subordination of state sovereign immunity in the bankruptcy arena." In reaching this conclusion, he acknowledged that the Court's decision in Seminole Tribe and succeeding cases had assumed that those holdings would apply to the Bankruptcy Clause, but stated that the Court was convinced by "[c]areful study and reflection" that "that assumption was erroneous". The Court then crystallized the current rule: when Congressional legislation regulates matters that implicate "a core aspect of the administration of bankrupt estates", sovereign immunity is no longer available to the States if the statute subjects them to private suits.
They can easily get away with anything while hiding behind "confidentiality/patient privacy." They can also be knuckleheads because there is no agreement , consensus or strict definition of the various conditions. They can make any statement sounds nuts. I agree with taping (but the client keeps the tapes) and if the shrink objects, find someone else.
I put a claim in through my insurance company and my doctor was ordered --by them-- to pay me the balance of a certain procedure she had performed. Although she wasnt happy about it she agreed to pay. After 1 month and still no check i call her office to ask where my money is....get the run around...call insurance company who sends claim to provider relations since doctor still hasnt paid after about 2 months....Doctor is now stating that her office never gave me diagnosis and CPT codes that were submitted with claim---therefore she is not required to pay me anything(which is a lie i have the date and time and person i spoke to who gave me the codes) Can I sue HER for insurance fraud?
A four-year statute of repose applies to claims arising out of acts or omissions on or after April 11, 2003. A claim must be brought within four years of the act or omission, except that a claimant has one full year from discovery, even if this exceeds four years, for claims discovered after three years or claims based on a foreign object left in the body only. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.113
Anyone familiar with the Hippocratic oath understands the undeniable bond between medical care and ethics—ideally, physicians are driven by the desire to help patients, not hurt them. Yet, harm does sometimes occur, and patients have the right to hold such doctors accountable in a court of law. While the topic of not telling the truth poses more of an ethical question than a legal one, there are established legal boundaries for medical professionals that, when crossed, could justify a lawsuit.