Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Defining A Health Care Liability Claim In The Post-Texas West Oaks Era., William Woolsey
Defining A Health Care Liability Claim In The Post-Texas West Oaks Era., William Woolsey
St. Mary's Law Journal
Following the Texas Supreme Court’s rulings in West Oaks Hospital v. Williams and Ross v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, it remains unclear whether a non-patient’s injury in a hospital constitutes a health care liability claim (HCLC). If the trial court rules the claim is an HCLC, the plaintiff must present expert testimony. Failure to present an expert report within 120 days after filing the suit results in automatic dismissal. The Texas Supreme Court addressed this issue in West Oaks. The Court held that a claimant, suing a hospital under a theory of premise liability, need not be a patient for …
The Independent Medicare Advisory Committee: Death Panel Or Smart Governing?, Robert Coleman
The Independent Medicare Advisory Committee: Death Panel Or Smart Governing?, Robert Coleman
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
No abstract provided.
Coercion, Compulsion, And The Medicaid Expansion: A Study In The Doctrine Of Unconstitutional Conditions, Mitchell N. Berman
Coercion, Compulsion, And The Medicaid Expansion: A Study In The Doctrine Of Unconstitutional Conditions, Mitchell N. Berman
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act produced three main holdings concerning two critical provisions of the Act. The first two holdings concerned the “individual mandate” that requires most Americans to maintain “minimum essential” health insurance. The third holding concerned “the Medicaid expansion,” which expanded the class of persons to whom the states must provide Medicaid coverage as a condition for receiving federal funds under the Medicaid program. By a vote of 7-2, the Court struck down this provision as an impermissible condition on …
Paradox And Pandora's Box: The Tragedy Of Current Right-To-Die Jurisprudence, Cathaleen A. Roach
Paradox And Pandora's Box: The Tragedy Of Current Right-To-Die Jurisprudence, Cathaleen A. Roach
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Part I of this Article examines the trilogy of recent right-to-die cases and contrasts the results of those cases with recent national opinion polls and statistical surveys of the issue. Part II examines federal and state legislative responses to the debate. It suggests that both the courts and legislatures are out of sync with an emerging national consensus on the death-with- dignity debate. In fact, the federal legislative response may only exacerbate the problem. Instead of creating new rights, it feeds individuals into the existing state network, which is a quagmire of confusing and inequitable statutory provisions. Part III examines …