Answer questions/outline

Answers and Outline
Student’s NameProfessor’s Name
Course Title
Date
Questions
Question 1
In Oliver v. Brock, the court considered the predominant rule governing physician-patient relationships. The court determined the non-existence of a relationship because the patient did not request professional services of medical or surgical treatment from a physician (Showalter, 2017, p.123). The engagement should be consensual so that the patient requests for assistance while the physicians accept the offer. Consequently, there lacked an explicit contract that would bind the doctor to incur costs or injury suffered by the plaintiff.
Question 2
Workers’ compensation benefits are sole remedies for workplace injuries of workers because they are precluded from suing their co-workers or employers for negligence or other malpractice. Receiving benefits for original injury or tort is uncommon under dual capacity doctrine because the co-worker or employer malpractice is detached from the employment relationship. In Guy v. Arthur Thomas Co., the court only allowed compensation for malpractice.
Question 4
Intentional torts can arise in the healthcare field when a physician prescribes the wrong medication, which aggravates injuries or conditions of patients. Moreover, physicians who force patients to take medication commit intention tort called assault (French & Fordney, 2013, p.87). The intentional tort may further arise when practitioners publicize confidential medical records and undertake wrongful intrusion of private affairs of patients.

Helling v. Carey 83 Wash. 2d 514, 519 P.2d 981 (1974)
Critical Facts
Ophthalmology partners, Dr. Carey and Dr. Laughlin prescribed contact lenses after Helling complained of vision complications (Showalter, 2017, p.159). Helling experienced the vision problem after a 5-year period after which the defendants diagnosed her with glaucoma. Helling sued the doctors for failing to conduct screening for glaucoma. The court ruled that doctors followed the standard of care, but Helling appealed the ruling.
Court Ruling
The court reversed trial and appellate courts’ ruling by citing Ophthalmologists’ liability and negligence. The defendants did not exercise reasonable prudence in the administration of pressure tests to the plaintiff.
Importance of the Case
The case addresses standards of care and strict liability for practitioners. A physician can follow standards of care but become liable. Moreover, courts guide doctors on how to apply clinical practice guidelines for proper patient treatment. Doctors should weigh costs and risks when treating patients.
References
French, L., & Fordney, M. (2013). Administrative medical assisting (7th ed.). Delmar: Cengage Learning.
Showalter, J. (2017). The law of healthcare administration (7th ed.). New York: Health Administration Press.