Who are the Authorities in Health Law?
Health Law
Health administrators must demonstrate an accurate knowledge of heath law in order to provide appropriate solutions for patients and clients. However, certain portions of health law possess grey areas in which multiple definitions for concepts become possibilities. When observing the legalities present in the concept of apparent authority, health administrators have the professional responsibility of determining crucial issues like liability, the validity of specific medical procedures as well as understanding how patients react to them. Even though apparent authority only possesses a brief existence in the study of health law, the concept remains one of the most important aspects contributing to attorney’s ability to provide appropriate legal counsel for patients, physicians and health care facilities respectively.
Six Identifiers
One of the greatest challenges in studying apparent authority rests in its ambiguous nature. Even though many health law statutes concern matters affecting large populations rather than niche circumstances, apparent authority continues to gain traction as a viable form of due process. While many laws regarding health information and client confidentiality contain specific legal measures for the adherence by healthcare professionals, apparent authority only provides a short description of the types of identifiers present which would determine a particular entity’s authority in the matter. Health law only introduces the following six identifiers as tools for discovering liable parties: identifying who hired the physician, the nature of the healthcare provided and its appropriateness, the discovery of any written notices of liability, evidence of the patient’s ability to reject services, and any documents or audio files demonstrating a special knowledge between doctor-hospital. The law’s ability to determine the liable party depends heavily upon the evidence available in the particular case. Therefore, the concept inherently lacks concrete definitions for the participants in the legal process and each component carries the potential of subjective acceptance or rejection by a judge or jury.
Legal
Apparent authority challenges typical legal concepts for liability. In employment law, for example, particular employees like supervisors and managers can make the employer liable for instances of workplace negligence and discrimination, as well as complaints regarding OSHA and Equal Pay Act. Even though the shareholders and executive management may have no knowledge of the alleged illegal discrepancy, the business entity may carry liability due poor actions by employees. Health law does not provide as concrete of a policy, particularly in regards to apparent authority. The essential question regarding matters of apparent authority involves who assumes liability for alleged malpractice, the physician or the hospital. Each legal case provides a unique answer to the question based on circumstance and evidence.
Legal ambiguity remains a strong obstacle to risk management processes. While healthcare professionals receive multiple forms of training in order to provide patient services and ensure risk management, the later holds particular difficulties due to subjective liability. Hospitals and other healthcare facilities may find it challenging to construct appropriate policies and procedures regarding risk management especially since legal authority may not be apparent in particular circumstances. While many concrete laws exist within employment law, the growing concept of apparent authority will introduce new statues due to emerging litigation and recent benchmark cases like Estate of Cordero v. Christ Hospital.
Litigation
The presence of emerging litigation changes the relationship between physician and hospital. Many physicians choose to start their own practices and begin the process of registering the entity with the Secretary of State’s office just like other corporate and non-profit entities. Therefore, healthcare facilities receive registration identical to other corporate entities, making them businesses by definition. While other corporations and non-profit entities adhere to laws with concrete definitions of authority, many physicians find it difficult to understand when they hold liability or the hospital does as an entity. Since the facility is a corporation, the business carries either limited liability or holds reputation as a completely separate business entity. Theoretically, the hospital would be a separate entity holding all responsibility for liabilities. However, Estate of Cordero v. Christ Hospital and other cases put pressure on the courts to consider physicians as employees of hospitals notwithstanding the possibility of liability, even if the practicing professional registered the facility as a corporation.
Risk Management
Therefore, physicians who just so happen to be founding members of the particular healthcare business, do not automatically receive protection for malpractice and other legal liabilities. In circumstances where a physician is both a practicing employee and a shareholder or executive, courts are increasingly disregarding the upper status and viewing them solely as employees. The relationship between physician and agency should not depend upon the distribution of liability; instead the healthcare professional should assume personal responsibility for potential legal liability upon beginning the physician-patient relationship. Health administrators can help both parties by informing institutions and professionals regarding the concept of apparent authority as a method of implementing a strategy for risk management.