Search

Physicians confront a variety of liability issues when supervising nonphysician clinicians (NPC) including: (1) direct liability resulting from a failure to meet the state-defined standards of supervision/collaboration with NPCs; (2) vicarious liability, arising from agency law, where physicians are held accountable for NPC clinical care that does not meet the national standard of care; and (3) responsibility for medical errors when the NPC and physician are co-employees of the corporate enterprise. Physician-NPC co-employee relationships are highlighted because they are new and becoming predominant in existing healthcare models. Because of their novelty, there is a paucity of judicial decisions determining liability for NPC errors in this setting. Knowledge of the existence of these risks will allow physicians to make informed decisions on what relationships they will enter with NPCs and how these relationships will be structured and monitored.

The parameters of vicarious liability of corporations for the conduct of their employees, especially in the context of provisions that criminalise breaches of regulatory provisions, are complex. The decision of Bell J in ABC Developmental Learning Centres Pty Ltd v Wallace [2006] VSC 171 raises starkly the potential unfairness of an approach which converts criminal liability of corporations too readily into absolute liability, irrespective of the absence of any form of proven culpability. The author queries whether fault should not be brought back in some form to constitute a determinant of criminal liability for corporations.

This article examines the application of Americans with Disabilities Act requirements to professional associations like physician practice groups. In general, employers with 15 or more full-time employees must comply with the Act. However, the definition of an employee is sometimes unclear, especially as applied to business entities commonly used by physician practice groups. A recent case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that physician-shareholders of a professional corporation are employees for Americans with Disabilities Act coverage purposes. Analogous cases in other federal circuits have held differently, likening the "owners" of professional corporations to partners in a partnership, who are not considered employees. Similar questions arise for popular business entities, such as Limited Liability Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships. This article discusses the nature of the business forms commonly used by physician practice groups and how their characteristics impact employee status for Americans with Disabilities Act coverage. It then suggests that examination is useful beyond business formation characteristics to the purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other employment antidiscrimination statutes.

Recent Federal and state legislation and new payment opportunities from Medicare, Medicaid, and private payers may make it possible to offer telemedicine as a viable, cost-effective alternative to traditional care delivery in communities where access to health care is limited. Originally, nonexistent payment and expensive technology held back telemedicine but, these barriers are giving way to specific applications that can yield dramatic cost savings for group practices in the delivery of medical care while adding features and benefits not typically available in traditional delivery settings. Before joining a telemedicine network, group practices need to negotiate a variety of legal issues related to the corporate practice of medicine, patient confidentiality and privacy, malpractice, informed consent, licensure and credentialing, intellectual property, Medicare and Medicaid payment, fraud and abuse, medical device regulation, and antitrust.