HLT 520 Components of a Valid Contract Discussions 

HLT 520 Components of a Valid Contract Discussions

 

HLT 520 Week 2 Discussion 1 Latest-GCU

Discuss the four components of a valid contract and apply them to a contract with a vendor to purchase a new CT scanner. What would you include in the contract? How would you be sure it would be valid?

HLT 520 Week 2 Discussion 2 Latest-GCU

Since the hospital/patient relationship is considered a contract of sorts, how is it affected if the patient decides to disconnect himself from telemetry and leave the hospital for 4 hours to go score some cocaine on the street? What would you do as a hospital administrator in this situation?

 

GCU HLT 520 Week 2 Law Suit Recommendation Paper

Details:

Scenario: A physician is claiming injury and damages from a hospital that notified him they were not renewing his contract for services provided. The hospital gave him a 4-month notice and stated that they were exercising this right because they wanted the department in which the physician functioned “to go in a new direction.” The physician has filed notice of intention to sue.

1) As the hospital administrator, write a paper (750-1,000-words) that explores the options for defending the suit in court, going to arbitration, going to mediation, or structuring a settlement. Include the pros and cons of each option and end with a recommendation to your board of directors on which avenue to pursue.

2) Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

3) This assignment uses a grading rubric. Instructors will be using the rubric to grade the assignment; therefore, students should review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations for successful completion of the assignment

GCU HLT 520 Week 2 Respondeat Superior Paper

Details:

Scenario: A patient had surgery and the nurse-anesthetist administered the anesthesia. The patient subsequently arrested and died while under anesthesia. An investigation concluded that the patient was not receiving the needed amount of oxygen and the nurse-anesthetist missed the changes in the vital signs until the patient was close to cardiac arrest. The surgeon initially had assisted in positioning the patient and had helped to administer some of the initial anesthetic.

1) Write an analysis (750-1,000 words) of the situation and argue whether the doctrine of “respondeat superior” would cause the surgeon to have vicarious liability for the patient’s death.

2) Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

3) This assignment uses a grading rubric. Instructors will be using the rubric to grade the assignment; therefore, students should review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations for successful completion of the assignment

 

 

MORE INFO 

The doctrine of “respondeat superior”

Introduction

The doctrine of respondeat superior is an ancient legal concept that holds that employers can be held responsible for their employees’ actions. This means that if an employer instructs an employee to do something that results in harm to another person, the employer can be held liable for any resulting damages. Employers who are found liable under this doctrine can face all manner of penalties, including civil damages and criminal fines. Courts usually consider three elements when deciding whether an employee’s actions are actually those of an employer:

Respondeat superior is a Latin term that means “let the master answer.”

The term “respondeat superior” is derived from the Roman law, which referred to a person who was responsible for another’s actions. It was adopted into English law and has been used in the US and UK ever since. In tort law, it refers to the legal principle that a person or company must take responsibility for their own actions when they cause harm to another person or an organization. It also applies when someone breaks a promise or contract with you and then tries to blame you for their actions (for example: “I’m sorry I stole your stuff”).

In criminal law, there are two different types of culpability: direct culpability vs indirect culpability. Direct culpability means if we’re directly responsible; our negligence caused harm directly (for example: if I hit someone with my car). Indirect liability means there was another party involved who caused us harm indirectly (for example: If my friend smokes marijuana next door but he doesn’t tell me about it until after he crashes into my house).

It refers to the legal concept that employers can be held responsible for the actions of their employees.

The doctrine of “respondeat superior” refers to the legal concept that employers can be held responsible for the actions of their employees. This means that a company is liable for any damages caused by an employee and may face civil fines, criminal penalties and other consequences.

In order to establish this principle in court, you must prove that an individual acted outside of his or her authority while acting on behalf of your company (for example: stealing from a client). If you fail to do so, then there will be no liability on your part under this doctrine; instead, it will fall upon him/her as if he/she were doing it alone!

Employers who are found liable under this doctrine can face all manner of penalties, including civil damages and criminal fines.

The doctrine of “respondeat superior” can also be used to impose civil damages on employers who are found liable for harm caused by their employees. Civil damages are awarded to compensate a victim for his or her losses, such as medical bills and lost wages.

Employers who are found liable under this doctrine can face all manner of penalties, including criminal fines and even imprisonment. In some cases, these penalties may be greater than any amount of money an employer would have been required to pay out in damages under state law (and therefore less than what might be awarded under tort law).

Courts usually consider three elements when deciding whether an employee’s actions are actually those of an employer.

Courts usually consider three elements when deciding whether an employee’s actions are actually those of an employer. The first is whether the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment. If so, it’s considered that he or she was acting on behalf of the company—in other words, it’s considered that he or she was acting within “the scope” of their duties as outlined in their job description and accepted by management.

The second element is whether your employer knew or should have known about what you did (or didn’t do). If they didn’t know about your decision while it was being made but found out later on down the line (through reports from employees), then this could be taken into account as well: after all, if they had been aware that this type of behavior wasn’t allowed in the workplace before things got out of control then perhaps they could’ve prevented any problems from occurring altogether!

Employers may be held responsible for what employees do.

You may be familiar with the concept of “respondeat superior”, but do you know how it applies to your business? According to the doctrine, an employer can be held responsible for their employees’ actions if they knew or should have known that those actions were illegal. For example, if an employee steals from your company and you don’t know about it until after it happens (and even then), then you could face fines and damages as a result of this theft.

This setup works well for businesses because it allows them to protect themselves from liability in cases where employees make mistakes on their own accord — but there are some caveats: First off, employers must be careful not only about whether or not they’ve been keeping up-to-date on employee behavior within their respective departments but also how much control over these workers’ actions they really have at all times; secondarily though…

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the doctrine of respondeat superior can be a difficult one to navigate. However, it is important to remember that employers are not liable for every action taken by employees. The law recognizes this distinction and allows employers to be held responsible only if their employee acted in bad faith or with malice. If your company has been accused of violating this law, contact an experienced employment lawyer right away!