Court Cases Quiz

20 Questions | Total Attempts: 34

SettingsSettingsSettings
Please wait...
Court Quizzes & Trivia

.


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    Hongsathavij v. Queen of the Angels Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital - 1998
    • A. 

      Doctrine of Ostensible Agency MCO found liable for provider's action due to negligent credentialing and due to the appearance of control. MCO had a duty to select and monitor providers.

    • B. 

      Ended Charitable Immunity Patient lost leg and claimed hospital was liable for negligent treatment by physician (nurses failed to monitor; physician failed to consult) Courts determined hospitals are responsible for monitoring, supervising and controlling care where necessary to protect the patient.

    • C. 

      Governing Body is Ultimate Authority Physician taken off back-up panel for failing to accept patient; Board overturned hearing committee recommendation to reinstate call panel membership due to lack of substantial evidence

    • D. 

      Doctrine of Corporate Negligence Medical records had information on many lawsuits against Podiatrist. Hospitals are liable to patients and have a duty to use all information available in the peer review process.

  • 2. 
    Webman v. Little Company of Mary Hospital - California 1995
    • A. 

      Negligent Credentialing - hospital should have verified the information. Physician had ten malpractice cases pending when granted privileges, but omitted answering questions regarding malpractice cases pending and reported lied about privileges at other hospitals.

    • B. 

      Anti-competitive Peer Review - Led to Development of HCQIA Physicians conducted peer review for anti-competitive reasons liable for violating federal anti-trust laws. Was a violation of anti-trust

    • C. 

      Doctrine of Corporate Negligence, Negligent Credentialing, Breach of Duty. Patient alleged podiatrist negligence in procedure resulting in foot amputation. Podiatrist did not meet initial or revised criteria for Level II surgical privileges, but was granted privileges. No grandfaterhing Hospital responsible and patient was awarded over $7.75 mil

    • D. 

      Duty to Credential, Reasonable Application Requirements; Burden of Proof Application denied when physician refused to authorize prior hospital to release information. Denial of privileges appropriate

  • 3. 
    Harrell v. Total Health Care - 1989
    • A. 

      Negligent Credentialing - Failure to Credential The Manged Care Organization in this case was not held liable for negligent credentialing because State law granted immunity to non-profit health plans. State Law gave immunity to MCO

    • B. 

      Negligent Credentialing - hospital should have verified the information. Physician had ten malpractice cases pending when granted privileges, but omitted answering questions regarding malpractice cases pending and reported lied about privileges at other hospitals.

    • C. 

      Doctrine of Corporate Negligence, Negligent Credentialing, Breach of Duty. Patient alleged podiatrist negligence in procedure resulting in foot amputation. Podiatrist did not meet initial or revised criteria for Level II surgical privileges, but was granted privileges. No grandfaterhing Hospital responsible and patient was awarded over $7.75 mil

    • D. 

      Negligent Credentialing - should have requested information from other hospital regarding it's summary suspension of practitioner. No deficiencies (prior to this event) had occurred at Sharp Cabrillo.

  • 4. 
    Darling v. Charleston Memorial Community Hospital
    • A. 

      Governing Body is Ultimate Authority Physician taken off back-up panel for failing to accept patient; Board overturned hearing committee recommendation to reinstate call panel membership due to lack of substantial evidence

    • B. 

      Ended Charitable Immunity Patient lost leg and claimed hospital was liable for negligent treatment by physician (nurses failed to monitor; physician failed to consult) Courts determined hospitals are responsible for monitoring, supervising and controlling care where necessary to protect the patient.

    • C. 

      Doctrine of Ostensible Agency HMO found liable in patient's death as they were found to have advertised as providing medical care they advertised its physicians and medical center providers were competent and had been evaluated for up to six months before being selected as HMO providers. Chest perforation during breast biopsy, chest pain/MI six weeks later.

    • D. 

      Doctrine of Ostensible Agency MCO found liable for provider's action due to negligent credentialing and due to the appearance of control. MCO had a duty to select and monitor providers.

  • 5. 
    Elam v. College Park Hospital - California 1982
    • A. 

      Doctrine of Ostensible Agency MCO found liable for provider's action due to negligent credentialing and due to the appearance of control. MCO had a duty to select and monitor providers.

    • B. 

      Doctrine of Corporate Negligence, Negligent Credentialing, Breach of Duty. Patient alleged podiatrist negligence in procedure resulting in foot amputation. Podiatrist did not meet initial or revised criteria for Level II surgical privileges, but was granted privileges. No grandfaterhing Hospital responsible and patient was awarded over $7.75 mil

    • C. 

      Doctrine of Ostensible Agency HMO found liable in patient's death as they were found to have advertised as providing medical care they advertised its physicians and medical center providers were competent and had been evaluated for up to six months before being selected as HMO providers. Chest perforation during breast biopsy, chest pain/MI six weeks later.

    • D. 

      Doctrine of Corporate Negligence Medical records had information on many lawsuits against Podiatrist. Hospitals are liable to patients and have a duty to use all information available in the peer review process.

  • 6. 
    Robinson v. Magovern - 1982
    • A. 

      Physician brought anti-trust suit against the hospital he was denied initial privileges based on shortage of OR space, unfavorable recommendation and he would likely not contribute to hospital teaching program. Hospitals may determine proper limitation on competition with the hospital and surrounding areas. Denial of application is not a restraint of trade - not a violation of anti-trust.

    • B. 

      Disruptive Behavior Hospital can revoke otherwise competent physician's privileges when disruptive behavior adversely affects patient care. Denial of privileges appropriate

    • C. 

      Personality may be considered if it affects ability to practice or hospital operations. Physician initial application denied after reports from other hospitals on termination/restriction of privileges. Reports of substandard work and emotional instability. Denial was appropriate

    • D. 

      Physician failure to diagnose diverticulitis as cancer and performed inappropriate procedure with a history of four malpractice suits where two involved the same procedure.

  • 7. 
    Patrick v. Burget - US Supreme Court 1986
    • A. 

      Duty to Credential, Reasonable Application Requirements; Burden of Proof Application denied when physician refused to authorize prior hospital to release information. Denial of privileges appropriate

    • B. 

      Anti-competitive Peer Review - Led to Development of HCQIA Physicians conducted peer review for anti-competitive reasons liable for violating federal anti-trust laws. Was a violation of anti-trust

    • C. 

      Disruptive Behavior Hospital can revoke otherwise competent physician's privileges when disruptive behavior adversely affects patient care. Denial of privileges appropriate

    • D. 

      Negligent Credentialing - hospital should have verified the information. Physician had ten malpractice cases pending when granted privileges, but omitted answering questions regarding malpractice cases pending and reported lied about privileges at other hospitals.

  • 8. 
    Mathews v. Lancaster General Hospital - Tennessee 1996
    • A. 

      Reference letters from former partners were false and patently misleading, leading to liability on their part. Hospital did not have a legal duty to disclose its investigation of Dr. Robert Berry and its knowledge of his drug problems.

    • B. 

      Burden on physician to prove bad faith peer review. Committee including competitors found substandard care; outside consultant agreed;surgeon challenged summary judgement applying HCQIA immunity. Not a violation of anti-trust

    • C. 

      Physician failure to diagnose diverticulitis as cancer and performed inappropriate procedure with a history of four malpractice suits where two involved the same procedure.

    • D. 

      Personality may be considered if it affects ability to practice or hospital operations. Physician initial application denied after reports from other hospitals on termination/restriction of privileges. Reports of substandard work and emotional instability. Denial was appropriate

  • 9. 
    Mahmoodian v. United Hospital Center - West Virginia 1991
    • A. 

      Disruptive Behavior must be patient care related Denial of application due to physician's inability to work with others, no quality of care issues identified. Court held that disruptive behavior must be a real and substantial danger to the quality of medical care rendered to the disruptive MDs patients. Application should not have been denied.

    • B. 

      Anti-competitive Peer Review - Led to Development of HCQIA Physicians conducted peer review for anti-competitive reasons liable for violating federal anti-trust laws. Was a violation of anti-trust

    • C. 

      Ended Charitable Immunity Patient lost leg and claimed hospital was liable for negligent treatment by physician (nurses failed to monitor; physician failed to consult) Courts determined hospitals are responsible for monitoring, supervising and controlling care where necessary to protect the patient.

    • D. 

      Disruptive Behavior Hospital can revoke otherwise competent physician's privileges when disruptive behavior adversely affects patient care. Denial of privileges appropriate

  • 10. 
    Rao v. Auburn General Hospital - Washington 1978
    • A. 

      Disruptive Behavior must be patient care related Denial of application due to physician's inability to work with others, no quality of care issues identified. Court held that disruptive behavior must be a real and substantial danger to the quality of medical care rendered to the disruptive MDs patients. Application should not have been denied.

    • B. 

      Failure to Disclose Ophthalmologist did not disclose all prior hospital affiliations on application - hospital's summary suspension upheld Hospital action appropriate because provider did not give all the information

    • C. 

      Personality may be considered if it affects ability to practice or hospital operations. Physician initial application denied after reports from other hospitals on termination/restriction of privileges. Reports of substandard work and emotional instability. Denial was appropriate

    • D. 

      Physician brought anti-trust suit against the hospital he was denied initial privileges based on shortage of OR space, unfavorable recommendation and he would likely not contribute to hospital teaching program. Hospitals may determine proper limitation on competition with the hospital and surrounding areas. Denial of application is not a restraint of trade - not a violation of anti-trust.

  • 11. 
    Gonzales v. Nork & Mercy Hospital - California 1976
    • A. 

      Disruptive Behavior Hospital can revoke otherwise competent physician's privileges when disruptive behavior adversely affects patient care. Denial of privileges appropriate

    • B. 

      Negligent Credentialing - hospital should have verified the information. Physician had ten malpractice cases pending when granted privileges, but omitted answering questions regarding malpractice cases pending and reported lied about privileges at other hospitals.

    • C. 

      Hospitals owe patients a duty of care, laminectomy negligently performed, physician had a history of unnecessary or negligent surgeries.

    • D. 

      Physician failure to diagnose diverticulitis as cancer and performed inappropriate procedure with a history of four malpractice suits where two involved the same procedure.

  • 12. 
    Johnson v. Misericordia Hospital
    • A. 

      Duty to Credential, Reasonable Application Requirements; Burden of Proof Application denied when physician refused to authorize prior hospital to release information. Denial of privileges appropriate

    • B. 

      Negligent Credentialing - should have requested information from other hospital regarding it's summary suspension of practitioner. No deficiencies (prior to this event) had occurred at Sharp Cabrillo.

    • C. 

      Negligent Credentialing - Failure to Credential The Manged Care Organization in this case was not held liable for negligent credentialing because State law granted immunity to non-profit health plans. State Law gave immunity to MCO

    • D. 

      Negligent Credentialing - hospital should have verified the information. Physician had ten malpractice cases pending when granted privileges, but omitted answering questions regarding malpractice cases pending and reported lied about privileges at other hospitals.

  • 13. 
    Frigo V. Silver Cross Hospital - 2007
    • A. 

      Duty to Credential, Reasonable Application Requirements; Burden of Proof Application denied when physician refused to authorize prior hospital to release information. Denial of privileges appropriate

    • B. 

      Doctrine of Corporate Negligence Medical records had information on many lawsuits against Podiatrist. Hospitals are liable to patients and have a duty to use all information available in the peer review process.

    • C. 

      Doctrine of Ostensible Agency MCO found liable for provider's action due to negligent credentialing and due to the appearance of control. MCO had a duty to select and monitor providers.

    • D. 

      Doctrine of Corporate Negligence, Negligent Credentialing, Breach of Duty. Patient alleged podiatrist negligence in procedure resulting in foot amputation. Podiatrist did not meet initial or revised criteria for Level II surgical privileges, but was granted privileges. No grandfaterhing Hospital responsible and patient was awarded over $7.75 mil

  • 14. 
    Boyd v. Albert Einstein - Pennsylvania 1988
    • A. 

      Doctrine of Corporate Negligence Medical records had information on many lawsuits against Podiatrist. Hospitals are liable to patients and have a duty to use all information available in the peer review process.

    • B. 

      Doctrine of Ostensible Agency MCO found liable for provider's action due to negligent credentialing and due to the appearance of control. MCO had a duty to select and monitor providers.

    • C. 

      Doctrine of Corporate Negligence, Negligent Credentialing, Breach of Duty. Patient alleged podiatrist negligence in procedure resulting in foot amputation. Podiatrist did not meet initial or revised criteria for Level II surgical privileges, but was granted privileges. No grandfaterhing Hospital responsible and patient was awarded over $7.75 mil

    • D. 

      Doctrine of Ostensible Agency HMO found liable in patient's death as they were found to have advertised as providing medical care they advertised its physicians and medical center providers were competent and had been evaluated for up to six months before being selected as HMO providers. Chest perforation during breast biopsy, chest pain/MI six weeks later.

  • 15. 
    McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania - 1996
    • A. 

      Doctrine of Corporate Negligence Medical records had information on many lawsuits against Podiatrist. Hospitals are liable to patients and have a duty to use all information available in the peer review process.

    • B. 

      Doctrine of Ostensible Agency MCO found liable for provider's action due to negligent credentialing and due to the appearance of control. MCO had a duty to select and monitor providers.

    • C. 

      Ended Charitable Immunity Patient lost leg and claimed hospital was liable for negligent treatment by physician (nurses failed to monitor; physician failed to consult) Courts determined hospitals are responsible for monitoring, supervising and controlling care where necessary to protect the patient.

    • D. 

      Doctrine of Ostensible Agency HMO found liable in patient's death as they were found to have advertised as providing medical care they advertised its physicians and medical center providers were competent and had been evaluated for up to six months before being selected as HMO providers. Chest perforation during breast biopsy, chest pain/MI six weeks later.

  • 16. 
    Facts to establish Ostensible Agency
    • A. 

      Physician failure to diagnose diverticulitis as cancer and performed inappropriate procedure with a history of four malpractice suits where two involved the same procedure.

    • B. 

      Doctrine of Ostensible Agency HMO found liable in patient's death as they were found to have advertised as providing medical care they advertised its physicians and medical center providers were competent and had been evaluated for up to six months before being selected as HMO providers. Chest perforation during breast biopsy, chest pain/MI six weeks later.

    • C. 

      - Patient pays fees to HMO not the MD - Patient selects MD from list provided by HMO - HMO screens primary care providers - Providers are required to abide by rules in a contract - HMO doctors have a gate-keeping function, referrals are required

    • D. 

      Governing Body is Ultimate Authority Physician taken off back-up panel for failing to accept patient; Board overturned hearing committee recommendation to reinstate call panel membership due to lack of substantial evidence

  • 17. 
    Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center - 1980
    • A. 

      Reference letters from former partners were false and patently misleading, leading to liability on their part. Hospital did not have a legal duty to disclose its investigation of Dr. Robert Berry and its knowledge of his drug problems.

    • B. 

      Negligent Credentialing - Failure to Credential The Manged Care Organization in this case was not held liable for negligent credentialing because State law granted immunity to non-profit health plans. State Law gave immunity to MCO

    • C. 

      Disruptive Behavior must be patient care related Denial of application due to physician's inability to work with others, no quality of care issues identified. Court held that disruptive behavior must be a real and substantial danger to the quality of medical care rendered to the disruptive MDs patients. Application should not have been denied.

    • D. 

      Disruptive Behavior Hospital can revoke otherwise competent physician's privileges when disruptive behavior adversely affects patient care. Denial of privileges appropriate

  • 18. 
    Oskooi v. Fountain Valley Regional Hospital and Health Center - California 1996
    • A. 

      Physician failure to diagnose diverticulitis as cancer and performed inappropriate procedure with a history of four malpractice suits where two involved the same procedure.

    • B. 

      Personality may be considered if it affects ability to practice or hospital operations. Physician initial application denied after reports from other hospitals on termination/restriction of privileges. Reports of substandard work and emotional instability. Denial was appropriate

    • C. 

      Failure to Disclose Ophthalmologist did not disclose all prior hospital affiliations on application - hospital's summary suspension upheld Hospital action appropriate because provider did not give all the information

    • D. 

      Ended Charitable Immunity Patient lost leg and claimed hospital was liable for negligent treatment by physician (nurses failed to monitor; physician failed to consult) Courts determined hospitals are responsible for monitoring, supervising and controlling care where necessary to protect the patient.

  • 19. 
    Kadlec v. Lakeview Anesthesia Assoc. and Lakeview Medical Center - 2005
    • A. 

      Disruptive Behavior must be patient care related Denial of application due to physician's inability to work with others, no quality of care issues identified. Court held that disruptive behavior must be a real and substantial danger to the quality of medical care rendered to the disruptive MDs patients. Application should not have been denied.

    • B. 

      Doctrine of Ostensible Agency HMO found liable in patient's death as they were found to have advertised as providing medical care they advertised its physicians and medical center providers were competent and had been evaluated for up to six months before being selected as HMO providers. Chest perforation during breast biopsy, chest pain/MI six weeks later.

    • C. 

      Ended Charitable Immunity Patient lost leg and claimed hospital was liable for negligent treatment by physician (nurses failed to monitor; physician failed to consult) Courts determined hospitals are responsible for monitoring, supervising and controlling care where necessary to protect the patient.

    • D. 

      Reference letters from former partners were false and patently misleading, leading to liability on their part. Hospital did not have a legal duty to disclose its investigation of Dr. Robert Berry and its knowledge of his drug problems.

  • 20. 
    Bell v. Sharp Cabrillo Hospital - California 1989
    • A. 

      Doctrine of Corporate Negligence Medical records had information on many lawsuits against Podiatrist. Hospitals are liable to patients and have a duty to use all information available in the peer review process.

    • B. 

      Negligent Credentialing - Failure to Credential The Manged Care Organization in this case was not held liable for negligent credentialing because State law granted immunity to non-profit health plans. State Law gave immunity to MCO

    • C. 

      Negligent Credentialing - should have requested information from other hospital regarding it's summary suspension of practitioner. No deficiencies (prior to this event) had occurred at Sharp Cabrillo.

    • D. 

      Negligent Credentialing - hospital should have verified the information. Physician had ten malpractice cases pending when granted privileges, but omitted answering questions regarding malpractice cases pending and reported lied about privileges at other hospitals.