Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
chapter 6
health law
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| tort | CIVIL wrong for which law will provide remedy in form of a lawsuit to recover damages |
| objectives of tort law | preservation of peace between individuals, culpability, deterrence, and compensation |
| culpability | find fault for wrongdoing |
| deterrence | make sure that they won't do it again |
| how do tort law and contract law differ? | only tort law has to do with negligence |
| contract laws | agreement between 2 and does not have to be written |
| what makes a contract law valid? | - both parties have to be competent - has to be legal - need to have an offer - have to consider the offer - accept the offer |
| negligent of tort | unintentional commission or omission of an act that a reasonably prudent person would or would not do under given circumstances |
| 3 categories of negligence | malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance |
| malfeasance | performance of wrongful act that might be unlawful |
| misfeasance | improper performance of on act that a person might lawfully do, or active misconduct that causes injury - like medication given to wrong patient |
| nonfeasance | failure to act when there is a duty to act as a reasonable prudent person would in similar circumstances - like not doing your job |
| the 4 elements of negligence | duty of care, breach of duty, causation, liability - all of these parts have to be proven |
| duty of care | obligation to conform to recognized standard of care - like the reasonably prudent person standard |
| standards of healthcare are established by.... | - the reasonable physician - locality: but now it is a national standard - school rule concept: judging someone by where they schooled |
| breach of duty | deviated from standard of care, failure to adhere to obligation - documentation important |
| how can breach of duty be proven | - by expert witness - by professional publications - inexcusable outcomes - res ipsa loquitor |
| publications | considered hearsay, but can still overcome this if it can prove something |
| inexcusable outcomes or sentinel events | "never" events - unexpected occurrences involving death or serious physical or psychological injury, or the risk therof - a list of things that should just never happen |
| res lipsa loquitor | the thing speaks for itself - burden of proof is on defendant |
| 3 conditions to be met for res ipsa loquitor | 1. accident must be of a type that normally would not occur without negligence 2. defendant must have had sole control of apparent cause of accident 3. plaintiff could not have contributed to accident |
| causation | is breach of standard of care what caused injury? - injury would not have occurred "but for" defendants negligence |
| liability | awarded as damages - only to products means a person is responsible for damage and loss caused by acts/omissions regardless of fault |
| intentional torts | involved deliberate or intentional act |
| negligence or unintentional tort | occurs when harm is not intended but is a foreseeable consequence of conduct |
| most common type of tort | negligence |
| good samaritan statute | a statute that exempts from liability a person, such as a phyician passerby, who voluntarily renders aid to an injured person but negligently, causes injury while rendering the aid |
| ordinary negligence | negligence that is failure to act, or a simple mistake that causes harm to a patient |
| gross negligence | conduct that constitutes a willful or reckless disregard for a duty or standard of care |
| compensatory damages | a monetary award equivalent to the actual value of injuries or damage sustained by the aggrieved party - economic and non economic |
| punitive damages | monetary damages that may be awarded to a plaintiff to punish the defendant and deter similar conduct in the future - most common in intentional torts |
| contributory negligence | plaintiffs conduct contributed in part to injury that plaintiff suffered |
| comparative negligence | plaintiffs recovery is reduced based on his/her percentage of negligence that contributed to injury |
| assumption of risk | not negligence if proven that plaintiff... - had knowledge of danger - understood the risk - voluntarily exposed himself to risk |
| unavoidable accident | occurrence that could not have been foreseen or anticipated in exercise of ordinary care, and which results without fault or negligence of either defendant or plaintiff |
| act of god | a natural and unavoidable catastrophe that interrupts the expected course of events |
| vicarious liability | legal responsibility placed on one person for the acts of another like on the organization |
| physician countersuits | rarely successful |
| darling vs. charleston community hospital | - first case that found a hospital liable for negligence in allowing a doctor to practice there - benchmark case and hospitals have to provide enough trained staff |
Created by:
meerasemaan