Curbside Consults in Clinical Medicine: Empirical and Liability Challenges

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 49 (4):599-610 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In most U.S. jurisdictions, clinicians providing informal “curbside” consults are protected from medical malpractice liability due to the absence of a doctor-patient relationship. A recent Minnesota Supreme Court case, Warren v. Dinter, offers the opportunity to reassess whether the majority rule is truly serving the best interests of patients.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,628

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Should physicians be empathetic? Rethinking clinical empathy.David Schwan - 2018 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 39 (5):347-360.
Why physicians should not do ethics consults.Frank H. Marsh - 1992 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 13 (3).
Evidentiary challenges to evidence‐based medicine.Benjamin Djulbegovic, Lou Morris & Gary H. Lyman - 2000 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 6 (2):99-109.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-04-08

Downloads
9 (#1,248,077)

6 months
6 (#507,808)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Blurring Boundaries and Online Opportunities.Jeanne M. Farnan & Vineet M. Arora - 2011 - Journal of Clinical Ethics 22 (2):183-186.

Add more references