Notable litigation this year involved tussles over expert testimony, clinical judgment, informed consent and exam-room censorship.
New Jersey Supreme Court case could leave physicians exposed to large fines. Physicians are in a constant state of education to keep their skills and knowledge at the forefront so that their patients get the best care possible. But sometimes unintentional missteps on the business side of medicine can have serious ramifications for both physicians and their patients. A case that went before New Jersey’s top court put physicians in danger of exposure to large fines based on a legal technicality.
Liability suit seeks change to informed consent. A case before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania could have major implications on how physicians obtain informed consent prior to a surgery. At stake in Shinal v. Toms is whether a patient’s informed consent to surgery can be predicated on information provided in part by a physician’s assistant, as opposed to just the physician. Both the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE) and common law have made it the physician’s duty to see that the proper information is conveyed, but the question is whether delegating tasks to qualified professionals is also within the bounds of the law and common medical practice.
Banning expert testimony from liability cases: Court decides. Can trial courts block physicians’ expert witnesses from testifying in medical liability cases? One Wisconsin court recently did, leaving it to the court of appeals to decide whether a physician defendant has the right to present expert testimony that differs from that of the plaintiffs. At stake in Bayer v. Dobbins was whether trial court had properly excluded expert testimony regarding injuries to a newborn that had resulted in complications in the birthing process.
Judgment on life expectancy at issue in Medicare fraud case. Determining life expectancy is not an exact science, but over a million Americans each year who turn to hospice care depend on a physician’s clinical judgment so they can live their remaining time in relative comfort. The Medicare hospice benefit, created in 1982, helps patients transition to end-of-life hospice care. A case before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is threatening physicians’ ability to exercise their judgment.
At stake in United States of America v. GGNSC Administrative Services is this question: When can a physician’s clinical judgment regarding a patient’s life expectancy—based on the normal course of a terminal illness—be considered false under the False Claims Act?
Freedom of patient-physician conversations hinges on court case. A federal court will be hearing a case about the constitutionality of a state law that represses free discussion between physicians and patients regarding health and safety issues. In a friend-of-the-court brief, the AMA and eight other medical societies urged the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a Florida law that restricts physicians from discussing firearm safety with patients and their families.
Florida court decision on censorship in the exam room. A rare rehearing has been granted for a case that could have significant ramifications for the patient-physician relationship. The outcome physicians are hoping for: That the court will overturn a state law that limits which health and safety topics physicians can talk about with their patients in the exam room. The 11th Circuit Court has granted a rare rehearing to decide whether a state can bar physicians from communicating freely with their patients and their families about firearm safety. Providing this kind of safety counseling can help prevent gun-related injuries and deaths, particularly among children.
