Appellant Court Case Related to a Health Care Legal Case Analysis Instructions
Since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, there have been several lawsuits in the federal courts, and some have made their way to the Supreme Court. Not all of these cases are accepted for appeal by the Supreme Court and thus are settled at the appellate court. Analyze a recent appellant court case related to a health care legal case. If possible, find a case in your own federal appellate court. Discuss the following in a 3 page paper not including the title page and reference page:In what court did this case originate?
- What is the law at issue in this case?
- What are the arguments supporting the law, and what are the arguments to overturn the law?
- Discuss the effect of this court case on health care delivery or operations. For example, will patient care be changed?
- How will the operations of a health care organization or health insurance company be changed?
Sample Answer – Ascaris Mayo and Antonio Mayo Vs Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund
This paper is based on a case of Ascaris Mayo and Antonio Mayo versus Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund. The case originated from the circuit court of Milwaukee County in Wisconsin. Mayos was seeking noneconomic damages compensation following medical practices that resulted to advanced medical problems for Ascaris Mayo. The case was to determine the constitutionality of noneconomic damages in actions of medical practice. The law at issue in this case is Win. STAT Setion 893.55(2015-2016) which focus on noneconomic damages in action of medical practice. The case focuses on determining constitutionality of that particular law and hence unconstitutionally applied in this case (Wincourts.gov, 2016).
Argument for and Against that Law
Those refuting the law claims that noneconomic damages statutory cap is facially unconstitutional since it infringes the same principle articulated by the Supreme Court in Ferdon ex rel. petrucelli v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 2005, by imposing an illogical and unfair burden on disastrously injured patients only, thus refuting them the laws equal protection (Wincourts.gov, 2016). The cap is said to always lower noneconomic damages for the class of victims that are most severely injured who have been granted damages above the cap, yet always permitting full damages to victims that experience less severe injuries from medical malpractice, this cap thus repudiates equal protection to that victims of malpractice class whose enough noneconomic damages a fact finder has established are more than what is permitted by the cap. Being unconstitutional based on this argument, it was thus considered unconstitutionally applied in mayo’s case. Those who supported the law argued that the noneconomic damage statutory cap is not facially unconstitutional, though it was unconstitutionally used on the mayos case based on due process and equal protection ground. The law permits a total of $1 million for single claim per year and a total of $3 million for total noneconomic compensation claim per medical institution per year. Thus the initial amount given to Mayo’s was highly quoted and above the permitted amount. However, the law itself is not unconstitutional sine it is highly supported by Ferdon ex rel. petrucelli v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 2005 (Wincourts.gov, 2016).
Effect of the Court Case on Healthcare Delivery
The court case clearly approved liability for medical malpractice. The court clearly demonstrated that health care organization is liable of any medical malpractice conducted by its employees. It also sent a message that the liability is limited and hence healthcare organization must limit such cases otherwise they may lose its ability to operate by being recorded for high level of malpractice than permitted. According to the court, any health insurance provider is permitted to pay a total liability of up to $3 million per year for a single healthcare organization and not more than $1 million for a single victim (Wincourts.gov, 2016).The question is what happens when a single healthcare organization commit so much malpractices to surpass this limit of noneconomic liabilities. This clearly shows that the court calls upon the healthcare organization to be more committed to their operations and ensure that its workers are committed to their work, professional and careful while offering their services. It should ensure that workers embrace efficiency, quality of care and safety. Maximizing this will reduce cases of malpractice and legal cases related to malpractices.
Change in the Healthcare Organization or Health Insurance Company
The court ruling will make healthcare organization to be more careful while conducting its normal duties, especially when handling the patients. Quality of care from assessment, diagnosis, treatment, patient engagement and the rest will be done more effectively. By limiting the organization noneconomic liability that can be paid by the insurance company, it puts the organization in a position where it may be forced to pay for extra liabilities from its own accounts. It also clearly shows that the government is not ready to have a healthcare organization that records so many cases of malpractices damages. The case will thus push organization to be more productive and efficient. The court case also reduced the health insurance providers’ burden on malpractice settlements. By limiting the amount to be paid per year, the court tries to improve the quality of care and hence reducing the chances that health insurance providers will loss huge amount of money handling cases that could been prevented. This makes it possible for the money to be used in other important medical procedures. The operations of health insurance providers are changed by protecting the companies from being misused by healthcare organization. This court case instills trust that the provider has with the government in protecting its interest. It also increases chances of easy relation between the provider and healthcare organization since they are sure that they can hardly be misused. This eases the relationship between the healthcare organizations and health insurance provider such that they may feel at ease paying for medical damages. The provider will easily consider future liabilities as unavoidable mistakes and not just a sense of carelessness for the organization knows the liability will be taken by the provider.