Family aims to take down military malpractice shield
Medical Staff Leader Connection, April 28, 2011
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
The Feres Doctrine protects military medical personnel from medical malpractice lawsuits. The 1950 Supreme Court ruling equates injuries from medical mistakes with battlefield wounds, but many argue that the doctrine is out of date, including the family of 25-year old Air Force Staff Sgt. Dean Patrick Witt, who died after a nurse anesthetist inserted a breathing tube down his esophagus, rather than his trachea, during a routine appendectomy, reports Insurance Journal. A federal court denied the Witt’s family’s claim of malpractice, but the family has appealed; the Supreme Court will make a decision next month.
Those who support the Feres Doctrine say that overturning it could cost the government $135 million each year defending malpractice claims and that military personnel who are injured in hospitals will have greater redress than soldiers who are wounded on the battle field. Those who oppose the doctrine say that military hospitals have less motivation to implement quality initiatives without the possible consequence of malpractice claims.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
Related Products
-
The Medical Executive Committee Handbook, Third Edition
Updated to reflect the new 2007 Joint Commission standards, this best-selling resource offers practical tools and strategies...
-
Medical Staff Leaders' Practical Guide, Sixth Edition
Written by experienced medical staff leaders currently working in hospitals, The Medical Staff Leaders' Practical Guide...
-
Assessing the Competency of Low-Volume Practitioners:
The Joint Commission requires that hospitals verify physician competence using performance data. Yet organizations often...
-
The Final Verdict on MS.01.01.01:
The Joint Commission has finalized and communicated the changes to MS.01.01.01. This program will not restate what you...
-
Medical Staff Briefing
This monthly resource acts as a support system by providing time-saving tools, expert advice, and analyses to help you...
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- E-mailed
-
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q&A tackles coding questions about injections and infusions
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Case Management Monthly, June 2012
- Searched