Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 16 of 16
Full-Text Articles in Medical Jurisprudence
Non-Physician Vs. Physician: Cross-Disciplinary Expert Testimony In Medical Negligence Litigation, Marc D. Ginsberg
Non-Physician Vs. Physician: Cross-Disciplinary Expert Testimony In Medical Negligence Litigation, Marc D. Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
The source of the applicable standard of care in a specific medical negligence claim is multifaceted. The testifying expert witness, when explaining the applicable standard of care, “would draw upon his own education and practical frame of reference as well as upon relevant medical thinking, as manifested by literature, educational resources and information available to practitioners, and experiences of similarly situated members of the profession.” Accordingly, in typical medical negligence litigation, the plaintiff’s expert witness testifying regarding the existence of and the defendant-physician’s deviation from the standard of care would be a physician. Why, then, have courts permitted non-physicians to …
Informed Consent: No Longer Just What The Doctor Ordered? Revisited, 52 Akron L. Rev. 49 (2018), Marc Ginsberg
Informed Consent: No Longer Just What The Doctor Ordered? Revisited, 52 Akron L. Rev. 49 (2018), Marc Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
The law of informed consent in medicine has evolved from the original doctrine which required the physician's disclosure of the risks, benefits, and complications of (and alternatives to) a proposed procedure or treatment. The doctrine now implicates the disclosure of matters personal to the physician. Questions regarding the breadth of the doctrine in other respects have developed as well. This paper represents the author's second examination of the unconventional aspects of the law of informed consent.
Insuring Bias: Does Evidence Of Common Insurance Demonstrate Relevant Expert Witness Bias In Medical Negligence Litigation?, 55 Duq. L. Rev. 339 (2017), Marc Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
No abstract provided.
Beyond Canterbury: Can Medicine And Law Agree About Informed Consent? And Does It Matter?, 45 J.L. Med. & Ethics 106 (2017), Marc Ginsberg
Beyond Canterbury: Can Medicine And Law Agree About Informed Consent? And Does It Matter?, 45 J.L. Med. & Ethics 106 (2017), Marc Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
For those of us whose scholarship focuses on medico-legal jurisprudence, the law of informed consent is a gift. It has been a fertile topic of discussion for decades, with no end in sight. Although it is not difficult to acknowledge that patient autonomy is at the core of informed consent, the doctrine is not static - it has evolved in scope and continues to engage courts in thought provoking analysis.
The Execution Of An Arbitration Provision As A Condition Precedent To Medical Treatment: Legally Enforceable? Medically Ethical?, Marc D. Ginsberg
The Execution Of An Arbitration Provision As A Condition Precedent To Medical Treatment: Legally Enforceable? Medically Ethical?, Marc D. Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
No abstract provided.
The Execution Of An Arbitration Provision As A Condition Precedent To Medical Treatment: Legally Enforceable? Medically Ethical, 42 Mitchell Hamline L. Rev. 273 (2016), Marc Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
Is it reasonable for a physician to condition treatment upon the patient’s execution of an arbitration agreement? Is such an agreement enforceable? Is such an agreement medically ethical? This paper will address these topics (and others) in an effort to determine whether a treatment conditioned upon the execution of an arbitration agreement covering medical liability claims is consistent with, and should be a defensible component of the physician-patient relationship.
Good Medicine/Bad Medicine And The Law Of Evidence: Is There A Role For Proof Of Character, Propensity, Or Prior Bad Conduct In Medical Negligence Litigation?, 63 S.C. L. Rev. 367 (2011), Marc Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
No abstract provided.
Informed Consent: No Longer Just What The Doctor Ordered - The Contributions Of Medical Associations And Courts To A More Patient Friendly Doctrine, 15 Mich. St. U. J. Med. & L. 17 (2010), Marc Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
No abstract provided.
Apparent Authority And Healthcare In Illinois - Revisited, 27 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 11 (2006), Marc Ginsberg, Patricia C. Nowak
Apparent Authority And Healthcare In Illinois - Revisited, 27 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 11 (2006), Marc Ginsberg, Patricia C. Nowak
Marc D. Ginsberg
No abstract provided.
Informed Consent And The Differential Diagnosis: How The Law Overestimates Patient Autonomy And Compromises Health Care, 60 Wayne L. Rev. 349 (2014), Marc Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
The purpose of this paper is not simply to re-examine the doctrine of informed consent. The purpose, however, is to identify how the doctrine has evolved, its scope expanded, and how it has created serious consequences for physicians and patients. Specifically, this paper focuses on the differential diagnosis - the process by which a physician arrives at a diagnosis - and how some jurisdictions have manipulated informed consent to encompass this process. This paper will urge that the application of informed consent to the differential diagnosis is an unnecessary expansion of the doctrine and, potentially, compromises health care.
Apparent Authority And Healthcare In Illinois, 22 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 475 (2002), Marc Ginsberg
Apparent Authority And Healthcare In Illinois, 22 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 475 (2002), Marc Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
No abstract provided.
How Much Anguish Is Enough - Baby Switching And Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress, 13 Depaul J. Health Care L. 255 (2010), Marc Ginsberg
How Much Anguish Is Enough - Baby Switching And Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress, 13 Depaul J. Health Care L. 255 (2010), Marc Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
No abstract provided.
Not For The Faint Of Heart: Does A Hospital Owe A Duty To Warn A Squeamish Visitor?, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 473 (2008), Marc D. Ginsberg, Tricia E. Mcvicker
Not For The Faint Of Heart: Does A Hospital Owe A Duty To Warn A Squeamish Visitor?, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 473 (2008), Marc D. Ginsberg, Tricia E. Mcvicker
Marc D. Ginsberg
No abstract provided.
The Locality Rule Lives! Why? Using Modern Medicine To Eradicate An “Unhealthy” Law, 61 Drake L. Rev. 321 (2013), Marc Ginsberg
The Locality Rule Lives! Why? Using Modern Medicine To Eradicate An “Unhealthy” Law, 61 Drake L. Rev. 321 (2013), Marc Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
The "locality rule" places a geographical dimension on the professional standard of care in medical negligence litigation. It requires the measurement of a physician's conduct by a standard focusing on the geographical location of the treatment provided. This Article traces the origin of the locality rule, discusses its related practical problems, focuses on the states in which it exists, suggests that the rule is archaic, and explains how modern medicine (undergraduate medical education, graduate medical education, state medical licensure, board certification, continuing medical education and practice guidelines) is well positioned to eradicate it.
Beyond The Viewbox: The Radiologist's Duty To Communicate Findings, 35 J. Marshall L. Rev. 359 (2002), Marc Ginsberg
Beyond The Viewbox: The Radiologist's Duty To Communicate Findings, 35 J. Marshall L. Rev. 359 (2002), Marc Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
No abstract provided.
The Confrontation Clause And Forensic Autopsy Reports-A "Testimonial", 74 La. L. Rev. 117 (2013), Marc Ginsberg
The Confrontation Clause And Forensic Autopsy Reports-A "Testimonial", 74 La. L. Rev. 117 (2013), Marc Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
This Article examines the landscape of legal issues involved in determining whether the presence at trial of a surrogate pathologist, whose testimony refers to a forensic autopsy report prepared by the examining pathologist and provides the foundation for the admissibility of the forensic autopsy report, implicates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. This Article concludes that the practice of surrogate testimony and admission of the forensic autopsy report, well known and often required in criminal homicide prosecutions, implicates and violates the Confrontation Clause.