Medical Jurisprudence Commons^™

The Locality Rule Lives! Why? Using Modern Medicine To Eradicate An “Unhealthy” Law, 61 Drake L. Rev. 321 (2013), Marc Ginsberg

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

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.

Machine Speech, Tim Wu

Faculty Scholarship

Computers are making an increasing number of important decisions in our lives. They fly airplanes, navigate traffic, and even recommend books. In the process, computers reason through automated algorithms and constantly send and receive information, sometimes in ways that mimic human expression. When can such communications, called here “algorithmic outputs,” claim First Amendment protection?

Constitutional Uncertainty And The Design Of Social Insurance: Reflections On The Aca Case, Michael J. Graetz, Jerry L. Mashaw

Faculty Scholarship

The Health Care Case is best understood as a legal attack on the means but not the goals of the health care legislation. This emphasis on means rather than ends and on state over federal powers potentially poses significant risks for the complex institutional arrangements for social insurance that now exist and may imply harmful constraints on how Congress can restructure these programs to better meet the needs of the American people in the twenty-first-century economy. Not coincidentally, the new constitutional framework announced in the ACA decision favors those who want to dismantle rather than strengthen the nation’s social insurance …

The Missing Due Process Argument, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

The argument that eventually persuaded five members of the Supreme Court to conclude that the individual mandate exceeded Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is one most observers originally considered frivolous. In that respect, it is similar to another potential argument against the mandate — that forcing someone to pay for insurance violates the liberty interests guaranteed by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The Commerce Clause argument was the centerpiece of the challenge to the mandate; the due process argument was not meaningfully advanced at all. This chapter suggests reasons why.

Life, Heartbeat, Birth: A Medical Basis For Reform, David F. Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This Article does not revisit the moral, legal, and constitutional critiques of the Court’s position [in Roe v. Wade]. The voluminous commentaries on the flaws in the Court’s opinions speak for themselves. Rather, this Article seeks to ground an expansion of the protection available to the unborn on the implicit principles underlying current Supreme Court doctrine, refined and modified by recent medical research on nature of pregnancy and human pre-natal development. It will argue that the State’s compelling interest in the protection of what the Court has called “potential life” ripens at an earlier point in time than what the …

Loss Of Chance, Probabilistic Cause, And Damage Calculations: The Error In Matsuyama V. Birnbaum And The Majority Rule Of Damages In Many Jurisdictions More Generally, Robert J. Rhee

UF Law Faculty Publications

This short commentary corrects an erroneous understanding of probabilistic causation in the loss-of-chance doctrine and the damage calculation method adopted in Matsuyama v. Birnbaum. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is not alone. Many other common law courts have made the same error, including Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oklahoma. The consistency in the mistake suggests that the error is the majority rule of damages. I demonstrate here that this majority rule is based on erroneous mathematical reasoning and the fallacy of probabilistic logic.

Legal, Medical, And Ethical Issues In Minnesota End-Of-Life Care: An Introduction To The Symposium, Thaddeus Mason Pope

Faculty Scholarship

As America grays, and medicine’s ability to treat the sickest of patients expands, the legal, medical, and ethical issues in end-of-life care become more numerous, pressing, and intertwined. Because Minnesota’s citizens, clinicians, and courts are not far from these concerns, the Hamline University Health Law Institute and the Hamline Law Review hosted an interdisciplinary Symposium entitled "Legal, Medical, and Ethical Issues in Minnesota End-of-Life Care."

On November 9, 2012, we welcomed more than 200 participants to the newly opened Carol Young Anderson and Dennis L. Anderson Center on Hamline University’s Saint Paul campus. These participants included: attorneys, physicians, nurses, social …

Clinicians May Not Administer Life-Sustaining Treatment Without Consent: Civil, Criminal, And Disciplinary Sanctions, Thaddeus Mason Pope

Faculty Scholarship

Both medical and legal commentators contend that there is little legal risk for administering life-sustaining treatment without consent. In this Article, I argue that this perception is inaccurate. First, it is based on an outdated data set, primarily damages cases from the 1990s. More recent plaintiffs have been comparatively more successful in establishing civil liability. Second, the published assessments focus on too-limited data set. Even if the reviewed cases were not outdated, a focus limited to civil liability would still be too narrow. Legal sanctions have also included licensure discipline and other administrative sanctions. In short, the legal risks of …

Forward Special Edition: “Innovations In Public Health Law: Exploring New Strategies”, Lawrence E. Singer

Faculty Publications & Other Works

No abstract provided.

Deactivating Implanted Cardiac Devices: Euthanasia Or The Withdrawal Of Treatment?, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Concussion And Football: Failures To Respond By The Nfl And The Medical Profession, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Fda’S Graphic Tobacco Warning And The First Amendment, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Nfib V. Sebelius: Proportionality In The Exercise Of Congressional Power, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

With its opinion on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the U.S. Supreme Court sparked much discussion regarding the implications of the case for other federal statutes. In particular, scholars have debated the significance of the Court's recognition of an anticoercion limit to the Spending Clause power.

When it recognized an anticoercion limit for the ACA's Medicaid expansion, the Court left considerable uncertainty as to the parameters of that limit. This essay sketches out one valuable and very plausible interpretation of the Court's new anticoercion principle. It also indicates how this new principle can address a long-standing problem …

Sheltering Psychiatric Patients From The Deshaney Storm: A Proposed Analysis For Determining Affirmative Duties To Voluntary Patients, Claire Marie Hagan

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Joshua’S Children: Constitutional Responsibility For Institutionalized Persons After Deshaney V. Winnebago County, Susan Stefan

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Somewhere To Go: Protecting Families Facing Mental Illness Through Healthcare Reform And The Medical-Legal Partnership Model, Amanda M. Walsh

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Coercion, Consent, Compassion, John D. King

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beinor V. Industrial Claims Appeals Office, Emma S. Blumer

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

A "Common" Proposal, Stacey A. Tovino

Faculty Articles

The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the "Common Rule") is codified in separate regulations by seventeen federal departments and agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS’s version of the Common Rule currently contains a basic policy for the protection of all human subjects, codified at Subpart A of the Common Rule, as well as special provisions governing human subjects research involving three sets of vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates (Subpart B); prisoners (Subpart C); and children (Subpart D). This Article proposes that HHS amend the Common Rule to add a …

They’Re Planting Stories In The Press: The Impact Of Media Distortions On Sex Offender Law And Policy, Heather Ellis Cucolo, Michael L. Perlin

Articles & Chapters

Individuals classified as sexual predators are the pariahs of the community. Sex offenders are arguably the most despised members of our society and therefore warrant our harshest condemnation. Twenty individual states and the federal government have enacted laws confining individuals who have been adjudicated as “sexually violent predators” to civil commitment facilities post incarceration and/or conviction. Additionally, in many jurisdictions, offenders who are returned to the community are restricted and monitored under community notification, registration and residency limitations. Targeting, punishing and ostracizing these individuals has become an obsession in society, clearly evidenced in the constant push to enact even more …