In: Nursing
Contemporary issues in healthcare law and Ethics. Activity 9.1 beginning on page 214. What claims could Dr. Stuart assert against the other physicians, and what defenses could the other physicians raise? Discuss the elements of each potential claim and defense, as well as your evaluation of the likelihood of success on each claim or defense.
DrStuart was monitored the medical center and the the case main facts are compelling and brings out the lack of care at the center and few loopholes are present at there, so DrStuart can question the physicians for:
1. Falsifying and Slander: The physicians,Dr. Jackson and Dr. Alexander, quoted that "all of the physicians at the meeting on November 15 had agreed that Dr. Jackson and Dr. Alexander should speak to Happy Family on their behalf"- this claim is contentious. Under the facts given, no where is it mentioned, that the other Dr.s gave such a mandate to these Physicians, moreover there is no evidence/ facts given elsewhere, that lead us to believe that such an mandate have ever be given- it is highly possible that the Dr.s are lying and slandering Dr. Stuart, who is obviously disliked by the group, because they see her as a potential competitor and fear losing business to her center.
2. Coercing and Undue utilization of Official Influence: The facts from the cases states : "In addition, the administrator of General stated that General might have to reevaluate its contractual arrangement with Happy Family the next time that General’s provider contract with Happy Family came up for renewal"
This is a clear case of coercion and using official authority. It is plausible to believe that Happy Family has done its due diligence and had made their decision to enter into an agreement. Since the Hospital in qustion is a bigger player, which obviously means a source of higher revenues, the hospital used its significant clout to obfuscate a potential competitor in Dr. Stuart, by holding back Happy family and trying to interrupt Dr. Staurt's work.
On the other hand the Physicians can set up a defense stating that given the disclosures of new facts- regarding Dr. Stuart's Past history and client feedback- it is but their professional duty of the Dr.s to try and address the issues affecting the profession in general. Assuming all facts to be true and that the Dr.s were not lying, it is in common interest to stop practitioners like Dr. Staurt so as to maintain the high level of integrity, that is so common among medical practitioners.
However, after the analysis, it can be concluded that if presented tactfully, Dr. Stuart has a good case in her hand. Morality and ethical high ground stand of the Dr.s are impressive but it still not justfy their efforts to coerce happy family. If it can be proven beyond doubts, that happy family was indeed coerced, whcih led to their ultimate cancellation- Dr. Stuart can win the case.