How long am I required to keep a patient’s records once he leaves my practice?
October 22, 2008
Answer from Elizabeth Brody Gluck, Esq., of Verrill Dana LLP
A. You are required to retain patient records for seven years after the last patient contact.
Elizabeth Brody Gluck is a partner in the Boston office of Verrill, Dana, LLP. She represents providers and health care businesses on issues related to risk management, contracting, e-health, and innovative health technology matters. You can contact her at: ebrodygluck@verrilldana.com
The materials available on this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. There is no attorney-client relationship created between this or any attorney or author contributing to this website and the reader or browser of this site.
If someone sends me an unsolicited e-mail asking for medical advice and I reply, does that put me at risk for malpractice?
October 22, 2008
Answer from Elizabeth Brody Gluck, Esq. of Verrill Dana LLP.
A. Yes, you could be at risk if the sender is injured based on your advice.
Merely accepting and replying to an e-mail may be enough to establish a physician-patient relationship. You are at risk. However, the sender would still have to prove the other elements of a claim against you. That is, he or she may be able to show that a duty was created by nature of the newly-established relationship, but the other elements of the claim (including a breach of that duty, that your advice was a proximate cause of the individual’s injuries, and damages) would still have to be proven.
Elizabeth Brody Gluck is a partner in the Boston office of Verrill, Dana, LLP. She represents providers and health care businesses on issues related to risk management, contracting, e-health, and innovative health technology matters. You can contact her at: ebrodygluck@verrilldana.com
The materials available on this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. There is no attorney-client relationship created between this or any attorney or author contributing to this website and the reader or browser of this site.
A 17-year-old patient who is married and on active duty in the military needs surgery and says that he can provide consent for the treatment, even though he’s a minor. Is he correct?
October 22, 2008
Answer from Elizabeth Brody Gluck, Esq. of Verrill Dana LLP
A. He is. Although he is one year shy of majority age in Massachusetts, he fits within the “mature minor” exception to the consent requirement. In fact, he meets two exceptions to the need for consent. Under Massachusetts law (Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 112, § 12F) married minors and minors on active duty have the right to consent to their own treatment. Note that different states have different laws on this subject, so be sure to check the law in your state to determine the need for consent under certain circumstances.
Elizabeth Brody Gluck is a partner in the Boston office of Verrill, Dana, LLP. She represents providers and health care businesses on issues related to risk management, contracting, e-health, and innovative health technology matters. You can contact her at: ebrodygluck@verrilldana.com
The materials available on this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. There is no attorney-client relationship created between this or any attorney or author contributing to this website and the reader or browser of this site.
Surgeon operates on wrong vertebra
October 22, 2008
The case involved a 67-year-old woman with a long history of back pain.
Her pain had become more constant and developed into severe buttock pain radiating down both legs, which was aggravated with prolonged standing and sitting.
Q & A: Mandated care
October 17, 2008
Q. Does the government’s role in mandating medical services, either judicially or legislatively, negatively influence standards of care?
“Absolutely. They have a lot of good intentions, but they’re not working. We’ll have better health care in Massachusetts if we allow the doctors to police themselves. The Massachusetts Medical Society is fine. Tribunals are fine. At this point in time, there should be one moral and ethical mandate: to provide universal health care. Any other regulatory interference with the doctor-patient relationship is negative. I don’t tell lawyers how to practice law, or firefighters how to fight a fire. The U.S. has the resources and the ability to ensure that every sick person receives medical care. Beyond that, get out of my office.”
— Eric Ruby, M.D.
Chief of Pediatrics, Morton Hospital and member of the Mass. chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics
“In my experience, the state’s role in mandating insurance coverage for medical services has had a 
significant positive impact on the availability of quality patient care. … [W]e must be mindful that legislative mandates may affect premiums. … There is also some concern that mandates for specific methods of treatment may become obsolete or be found ineffective as medical science and technology advance. … Legislators should anticipate the eventual emergence of new technologies and advancements in patient care before approving any new mandate, and they should continue to regularly review existing mandates to ensure their compatibility with current standards of care.”
— Rep. Peter J. Koutoujian,
D-Waltham
Chair of the Joint Committee on Public Health
“I would hope that any legislation concerning mandates would always be driven by applicable medical standards of care, without provisions woven in that reduce patients’ rights to legal recourse if they are victims of inappropriate care. If a piece of legislation results in substandard care due to a cost issue, that’s a problem, particularly for those who cannot advocate for themselves, such as the elderly or the poor. The bottom line is no legislation should obviate the physician’s responsibility to provide the appropriate standard of care. The patient’s right to that care is sacrosanct.”
— Annette Gonthier-Kiely
Medical malpractice attorney, Salem
“There are occasions where the government’s efforts to regulate the provision of medical services, 
including the manner by which individual physicians provide that care, have had a significant deleterious impact on the quality of care provided. My recent experience with some of the policies of the Board of Registration in Medicine speaks loudly to the effect of intrusive regulation on the maintenance of appropriate standards. Professional staff members of the board had created such a hostile environment between licensed practitioners, the government, hospitals and patients that there were a growing number of highly qualified Massachusetts physicians who periodically considered, or decided on, relocating to other jurisdictions. Recent changes in the composition of the Board hopefully will lead to the establishment of a more productive environment.”
—Paul Gitlin
Attorney, Rubin & Rudman, Boston, former chair of the Board of Registration in Medicine
Mandated care requires a careful balancing act
October 17, 2008
Physicians and other health care providers are operating under an increasing number of restraints, guidelines, regulations and laws.
These “mandates” are coming from multiple sources: state and federal governments, the courts, insurance companies, regulatory agencies and independent health care organizations that accredit and certify facilities and programs.
‘Medical credit cards’ could lead to suits against doctors
October 17, 2008
Many doctors and dentists across the country are marketing medical credit cards to their patients, but lawyers say that in some cases they could lead to lawsuits against providers.
The cards could lead to a host of claims under state laws – such as unfair and deceptive practices and predatory lending statutes – being brought against a medical provider for not making proper disclosures.
Online health records: New frontier in a ‘wild, wild West’
October 17, 2008
The new online health accounts that give consumers a way to store and keep track of their medical data 
are the newest frontier in the unregulated terrain of electronic health records.
Doctor can be sued for patient’s lost chance of survival
October 17, 2008
In a pair of closely watched cases that significantly expand the types of claims plaintiffs can bring against doctors in medical malpractice cases, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has decided that state law for the first time will permit “loss of chance” recovery.
Mass. doctor prosecuted for patient’s death
October 17, 2008
As state authorities bring what is believed to be the first-ever criminal prosecution in Massachusetts against a physician for negligence in the treatment of a patient, doctors have yet another source of stress.
Loading ...
