RESUMO
The common law collateral source rule was established to prevent the defendant from benefiting from their wrongful actions. Despite a trend in the United States to limit the effects of the collateral source rule, the rule remains in force in courts of the State of Tennessee. However, to assist with the malpractice crisis, the legislature prohibited this rule by statute in regards to the Medical Malpractice Act. Although this statutory prohibition of the collateral source rule worked to lessen verdicts in malpractice cases after passage, the availability of consortium damages resulting from Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hospital in 1999 has worked to drive verdicts substantially higher. Regardless the Medical Malpractice Act has been held as constitutional and has been clarified through several recent Tennessee court decisions.
Assuntos
Imperícia/legislação & jurisprudência , Compensação e Reparação/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Reembolso de Seguro de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , TennesseeRESUMO
The legal concept of vicarious liability and the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior occurs when the servant (employee) commits a tort or civil wrong within the scope of employment and the master (employer) is held liable although the master may have done nothing wrong. In this article, legal cases are presented to emphasize the importance of these issues, which frequently involve physician extenders and physicians as employers in our current health care climate. Physicians need to be aware of this doctrine in the supervision of their staff and their day-to-day medical practice.