The school of medicine doctrine as a defense to chiropractic malpractice litigation

Article Abstract:

The school medicine doctrine is a defense that can be used by chiropractic physicians who face malpractice litigation; simply put, it holds that nonchiropractic physicians can not testify as experts on chiropractic standards of care. The doctrine derives from the usual definition of malpractice as a deviation from the standard of care in the community. Thus, health practitioners are judged by their adherence to the standards of the school of medicine to which they belong. Practitioners from one school of medicine are not competent to pass judgement on the performance of practitioners from another. Legal precedents where the school of medicine doctrine was invoked are described. For instance, allopathic physicians have been deemed incompetent to testify in cases involving podiatrists and osteopaths. One approach taken by courts has been to allow physicians licensed under the same laws to testify against each other (allopaths and osteopaths). This can be dangerous if it allows professional jealousy to enter into testimony. A better approach is to focus on standards of multi-discipline competency and to assume that a witness is incompetent to testify unless he or she is licensed in the same school of medicine as the defendant. If no differences in philosophy exist between two schools of medicine, the court should then decide whether the expert's opinion is likely to be affected by his or her medical training. The doctrine of medicine makes liability claims against chiropractors more difficult to pursue and ensures recognition of the fact that different schools may take different approaches to medical care. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Malpractice

---

Observations on risk management

Article Abstract:

In a foreword written for the book Risk Management in Chiropractic, written by Louis K. Campbell, Jacob Ladenheim, Robert P. Sherman, and Louis Sportelli, the author, a noted trial attorney, makes several observations on risk management and the dynamics of trial law. In litigation in which an individual is accused of doing something wrong, rather than a company or group or government, the major question that arises is: What kind of person is he? In a case involving malpractice this translates into what kind of doctor is he? Most medical people are nice people, but when attacked many become petty, resentful and arrogant. It is suggested that medical people are not equipped to fight with other human beings; they don't understand why some people root 'for the other side,' the underdog. Yet in the case of medical litigation, being a nice person for a medical professional begins when the doctor first meets the patient and does not end until after the trial, as all of this conduct may be used as evidence. Evidence is not the truth, but rather just the information that is allowed in the courtroom. False evidence sometimes wins a case. A case may be lost by a poor witness, such as a person who is telling the truth but seems untrustworthy or arrogant, or volunteers information. When giving testimony, consider what is trying to be accomplished; it is a complex undertaking. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Risk management, Observations, editorial

---

Arizona passes fair insurance claim law

Article Abstract:

The Arizona House Bill 2181 dated September 27, 1990 requires insurance companies to pay to chiropractic or allopathic (conventional medical practitioner) medical bills without discriminating between the two types. The passage of this bill is seen as an important victory for the chiropractic community and for citizens of the Arizona. The law specifically prevents insurance companies from denying payment because they are not familiar with the practices of chiropractic medicine. An earlier bill paved the way for payments to chiropractors, but some insurance carriers, in particular Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, had placed severe limits on payment for chiropractic spinal adjustments. The present bill is seen as a means of closing the loop-holes that allowed insurance companies to avoid the intent of the earlier bill. The measure was enacted despite a well organized and intense lobbying measure that opposed the bill. This effort was countered by an association of chiropractors, osteopaths, their patients, other consumers, and legislators. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Arizona, Insurance

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Quality of life before and after orthotopic hepatic transplantation
• Abstracts: A randomized trial to improve self-management practices of adults with asthma. Effectiveness of Agency for Health Care Policy and Research clinical practice guideline and patient education methods for pregnant smokers in Medicaid maternity care
• Abstracts: The challenge of caring for indigent children with rheumatologic diseases
• Abstracts: The association of genital ulcer disease and HIV infection at a dermatology-STD clinic in Uganda. High-titer positive nontreponemal tests with negative specific treponemal serology in patients with HIV infection and/or intravenous substance use
• Abstracts: Helicobacter pylori and associated duodenal ulcer. Investigation of rectal bleeding. Perforated duodenal ulcer: an unusual complication of gastroenteritis

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.