Final Exam Flashcards
(139 cards)
What was the matter in the case of Zucht v. King?
In this case, based on city ordinances, public officials excluded a student from public school because she did not have the required certificate and refused to submit to vaccination. She was also excluded from private schools..
What was the decision in the case of Zucht v. King?
The Supreme Court held that the ordinances conferred not arbitrary power to public officials, but only the broad discretion required for the protection of public health.
What was the matter in the case of Zoneraich v. Overlook Hospital?
In this case, after holding a number of hearings at which the doctor was represented by counsel, the hospital terminated the doctor’s membership on its medical staff. The doctor filed a complaint in court.
What did the court decide in the case of Zoneraich v. Overlook Hospital?
The court held that judicial review of hospital decisions about administration to the Medical Staff, extent of privileges, and termination was limited to whether there was sufficient, reliable evidence.
What was the matter in the case of Nanavati v. Burdette Tomlin Memorial Hospital?
In this case, the privileges of the doctor to practice medicine as a cardiologist were suspended by the hospital for alleged misconduct.
What did the court decide in the case of Nanavati v. Burdette Tomlin Memorial Hospital?
The court held that in order for the decision of the hospital to be affirmed, it only had to be supported by sufficient credible evidence.
What was the matter in the case of City of New York v. Antoinette?
Due to the resurgence of TB in New York, the Health Code was amended to permit detention of individuals infected with TB who demonstrate an inability to voluntarily comply with appropriate medical treatment. The patient was diagnosed with active TB, hospitalized three times, but refused to complete his medical treatment. The Commissioner filed a petition to detain him in the hospital to ensure compliance.
What did the court decide in the case of City of New York v. Antoinette?
The court rejected the patient’s claim and found that he was unable to comply with a treatment program in a less restrictive environment. The court also found that he does not have self-discipline to complete a program outside of hospital confinement
What was the matter in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts?
In this case, the defendant objected to compulsory smallpox vaccination. He alleged the vaccination program was an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
What did the court decide in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts?
The State Supreme Court held that the vaccination program was constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed and ruled that the vaccination program had a real and substantial relation to the protection of public health and safety.
What was the matter in the case of Jew Ho v. Williamson?
In this case, Jew Ho was a resident grocer in the district. He complained that a quarantine was affecting his business because customers could not enter the area. The plaintiff alleged that he was being unlawfully restrained of his liberty and illegally deprived of his property. The issue was whether the regulation was reasonable.
What did the court decide in the case of Jew Ho v. Williamson?
The court held that the quarantine was ineffective, discriminatory, and unreasonable.
What was the matter in the case of Pelman v. McDonald’s?
In this case, the plaintiffs, parents of juveniles, sued McDonald’s under the Consumer Protection Act, New York General Business Law Sections 349, 250. The juveniles were consumers who purchased and consumed McDonald’s products and alleged that such consumption was a significant or substantial factor in the development of their adverse health effects and/or diseases.
What did the court decide in the case of Pelaman v. McDonald’s?
The court said that it is well known that fast food is fattening. The juveniles, through their parents, knew or should have known critical facts. The court states that the vague allegations of reliance on a long-term deceptive campaign were insufficient to satisfy the statute. The court stated that they failed the draw a link between consumption and injuries. The court granted McDonald’s motion to dismiss.
Upon appeal, what did the court decide in the case of Pelman v. McDonald’s?
The Appeals Court held that the allegation that the restaurant’s food caused the adverse health conditions was sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss. Also, any information about other possible causes of the children’s conditions was proper for subsequent discovery. The lower court order was remanded. Following the case, Congress reacted and passed the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (2005).
What was the matter in the case of Ricks v. Budge?
In this case, Budge, a doctor, ceased treating Ricks due to an unpaid account.
What did the court decide in the case of Ricks v. Budge?
A doctor cannot unilaterally cease treating a patient due to a lack of payment.
What was the matter in the case of Sokol v. Akron?
In this case, Sokol claimed that Akron General Hospital abused its discretion in limiting his hospital privileges.
What did the court decide in the case of Sokol v. Akron?
The court decided that the board of trustees of a private hospital has broad discretion in determining who shall be permitted to have staff privileges.
What was the matter in the case of Re TACP?
In this case, the parents of an anencephalic child sought to have their child declared dead so that her organs could be donated.
What did the court decide in the case of Re TACP?
An anencephalic newborn is “not dead” for purposes of organ donation solely by reason of its congenital deformity.
What was the matter in the case of Davis v. Davis?
In this case, Junior Davis filed for divorce. Mary Sue Davis sought control of the seven frozen embryos stored in a fertility clinic.
What did the court decide in the case of Davis v. Davis?
Where the party seeking control of pre-embryos intends merely to donate them to another couple, the objecting party has the greater interest and should prevail.
What was the matter in the case of Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Wons?
In this case, Wons, a Jehovah’s Witness, refused to consent to a blood transfusion while still conscious and competent.