SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: KLP who wrote (316904)7/27/2009 1:20:15 PM
From: mph  Read Replies (1) of 793743
 
Government restrictions would have to play a role in liability decisions, I would think. The test for liability is whether the doctor acted within the standard of care in the community for whatever it was s/he was doing. If the government forbade something that would otherwise have been required by the standard of care, I'm not sure how the doctor could actually be liable.

It would create quite the mess.

I've usually seen suits against insurance companies who refuse to authorize certain recommended procedures, as opposed to suits against the docs for failing to do something the carrier won't approve.

The problem is that you can't just sue government for enforcing its laws, so the person is likely to be without a remedy.

The second article I linked (which for some reason did not hyperlink) summarizes the basic MICRA provisions in CA, including the limits on attorneys fees.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News