Halting the Vicarious Liability Juggernaut: Barclays Bank PLC v Various Claimants.

In Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, the Supreme Court rejected the claimants' argument that Barclays should be vicariously liable for the sexual assaults of a doctor hired on as a contractor to perform medical examinations on employees and job candidates at the bank. It upheld the traditional rule that a defendant is not vicariously liable for the torts of independent contractors. This commentary examines the law on liability for independent contractors and considers whether the Supreme Court decision is consistent with modern employment trends. The implications of the decision for medical law are then discussed.

The Health Legislation Amendment Act 2013 (QLD) and Queensland's health assets privatisation dispute.

'New legislation in Queensland has provided a "pathway" for the privatisation of health assets and services in Queensland, which effectively realigns the health care system to the financial market. This column explores how this legislation contained the antecedents of the Queensland doctors' dispute when doctors roundly rejected new employment contracts in February 2014. It also argues that such legislation and its attendant backlash provides a valuable case study in view of the federal government's 2014 budget offer to the States of extra funding if they sell their health assets to fund new infrastructure. The move to privatise health in Queensland has also resulted in a government assault on the ethical credibility of the opposing medical profession and changes to the health complaints system with the introduction of a Health Ombudsman under ministerial control. The column examines these changes in light of R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2001] EWHC Admin 429, a case concerning the obligations of a private entity towards publically funded clients in the United Kingdom. In discussing concerns about the impact of privatisation on the medical profession, the column points to a stark conflict between the duty to operate hospitals as a business rather than as a duty to patients.

Employee contract issues for dermatologists.

Employees and employers routinely face negotiating and preparing physician employment contracts. It is important for both sides to know and understand the basic information on what a comprehensive employment contract for a dermatologist should contain. There are various employment contract provisions from both the employee's perspective and the employer's perspective that must be considered when preparing physician employment contracts. This article provides basic advice and recommendations on requirements that should be included in such contracts. It suggests legal pitfalls that can be avoided through various contract clauses.

[Legal situation of the locum in the field of obstetrics or the question as to who is liable for what and when?]. / Rechtsfragen bei Vertretung im Rahmen der Geburtshilfe oder die Frage, wer haftet für wen und was?

With regard to the question of the liability of a locum, the contractual general conditions are important above all others for the locum. The false opinion of some physicians that one is not liable because one is on holiday - or at least was not concretely involved in the incident - can, from case to case, be misleading. Decisive in such cases is the prior clarification of insurance status and coverage.

Understanding the Basics of Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements.

BACKGROUND: Restrictive covenants are common in contractual agreements involving physicians and need careful consideration to minimize potential conflict during the term of the contract and on physician departure from a group practice or hospital system. METHODS: A general overview of the different components of restrictive covenants is provided, including specific information related to noncompetes, nonsolicitations, and nondisclosure agreements. RESULTS: In general, states will uphold restrictive covenants if the elements of the noncompete are reasonable regarding geographic distance restrictions (e.g., <20 air miles), time restrictions (e.g., <2 years), and scope of services. However, states vary considerably in the interpretation of restrictive covenants. Other components of the contract, such as alternative dispute resolution (mediation and/or arbitration) and buy-out clauses (i.e., liquidated damages provisions), should be considered at the time the agreement is negotiated. CONCLUSIONS: States are balancing the protection of business interests with the protection of free trade. It is important that physicians seek counsel with an experienced health care attorney with respect to restrictive covenants in his or her specific state. A simple, well-written, and reasonable restrictive covenant can often help limit legal conflict and expense.

Effectively using a healthcare attorney is critical to your practice's legal health.

Attorney jokes are legendary among physicians. However, in today's healthcare climate physicians can benefit by having a collaborative relationship with a trusted legal partner--one who understands the business and regulations of medicine as well as the law.

Swinging For Fairness: Law Creates New Ballgame for Surprise Billing.

When Senate Bill 1264 was first introduced in February, insurers had the bases loaded, threatening to score a lopsided surprise-billing victory on one swing. With some deft pitching in the Texas Legislature, medicine worked its way out of the jam. The "baseball-style arbitration" measure by Sen. Kelly Hancock (R-North Richland Hills) isn't perfect, and like a hitter who's getting busted inside, physicians will have adjustments to make. But the improved SB 1264 passed with a framework that's fairer to everyone involved.