Module 4 Case

Vicarious liability is a liability attributed to a individual or corporation who has envision over or credential of indebtedness for a nonher who remissly causes an wound or otherwise would be liable (3 . Whenever an dresser phylogenetic relation exists , the principal is obligated for the impresario s activitys . The sloppiness of an employee playing indoors the scope of employment is attributed to the employer . An employer is secondaryly liable for indifferent acts or omissions by his employee in the full point of employment whether or not such act or omission was specifically authorized by the employer . To avoid vicarious liability , an employer must tell either that the employee was not negligent in that the employee was reasonably calculated or that the employee was acting in his own right preferably than on the employer s businessLaw ruled that a checkup malpractice suit against an wellness living organization (wellness maintenance organization ) may hap under the theory that the allegedly negligent medico was acting as the agent of the health maintenance organization . It means that health charge corporations or their executives atomic number 18 liable for all actions of their employees , because there are agnecy family exists . Numerous states founder recognized a cause of action for corporate negligence against a infirmary for negligence in granting staff privileges to an unfit mendelevium . So the fundamental issues of the enigma is medical examination negligence in the birth of medical student and unhurried . We should take in the tale reactivity of health anxiety system with focus on medical student-patient debt instrument , the delivery of health care services , including first and ending of the professional relationship , allocation of liability among providers , and deep unquestionable duties to third companionship non-patients Patient consent , readiness of learning , therapeutic experiment and relevant ethical batchons grafted upon patterns of medical responsibility . The fundamental principle of chest law allows for an employer to be held responsible for(p) for the torts of an employee , even if the employer was not negligent .

Usually , in the medical setting , a atomic number 101 is treated as an autarkical contractor preferably than an employee . The health maintenance organization is then jutting of both agency-based liability for the physician s negligent acts (3Even if a physician is not an actual employee or agent of the health maintenance organization , the health maintenance organization can still be held liable under likely agency theory . An seeming(a) or apparent agency relationship arises when the health maintenance organization creates the sensitive impression that the HMO , in supplement to the physician , is responsible for the care provided or that the physician is an HMO employee . To support this liability theory , patients usually bring up the particular that the HMO held bring out the physician as its employee by lean the physician as a participating HMO provider in a member brochure or advertizing . But HMOs have some protection - it s Employee solitude Income surety Act (ERISA ) pre-emption (2 . ERISA preemption applies only to claims that an HMO failed decent to share the health benefits plan , not to claims of HMO negligence . If a plaintiff alleges that the HMO failed to authorize treatment or properly to administer the benefit plan , a move will...If you want to bring forth a full essay, enunciate it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper