Medical Law and Ethics Flashcards

A 16-year-old patient who is legally emancipated presents alone for treatment of a chronic condition. The medical assistant is unsure how to handle the consent form. Which statement correctly describes the legal standing of this patient?

Answer: The patient may consent to their own treatment, and parental consent is not required or appropriate

An emancipated minor is legally recognized as an adult for purposes of consenting to medical care. Emancipation (through court order, marriage, or military service, depending on state law) removes the requirement for parental consent entirely — in fact, involving the parent without the patient's authorization could constitute a confidentiality breach under HIPAA.

A patient signs a consent form for a diagnostic procedure, but later testifies that the provider never explained the risks, alternatives, or option to refuse. The signed form exists in the chart. In a claim of lack of informed consent, what is the most likely legal outcome?

Answer: The claim may succeed, because informed consent is a process of disclosure and comprehension, not merely a signature

A signed form is only evidence that a signature was obtained — it does not prove that the required disclosure (nature of the procedure, risks, benefits, alternatives, and the right to refuse) actually occurred or was understood. Courts treat informed consent as a communication process between provider and patient; if disclosure was inadequate, the claim can succeed despite the signature.

A CCMA receives a subpoena duces tecum for a patient's complete medical record, which includes psychotherapy notes and substance use disorder treatment records from a federally assisted program. What is the correct action?

Answer: Release the general record per the subpoena, but withhold the SUD records unless a court order or specific patient consent under 42 CFR Part 2 accompanies it

Substance use disorder records from federally assisted programs are protected by 42 CFR Part 2, which requires either specific patient consent or a court order meeting Part 2 criteria — an ordinary subpoena alone is insufficient. Psychotherapy notes also carry heightened HIPAA protection. The rest of the record may be produced in response to a valid subpoena, but the specially protected portions require additional authority.

A provider decides to end the physician–patient relationship with a chronically noncompliant patient who requires ongoing anticoagulation monitoring. The provider tells the front desk to simply stop scheduling the patient. Which legal risk does this create, and what is the correct process?

Answer: Abandonment; the provider must give written notice, allow reasonable time to find a new provider, and offer emergency coverage and records transfer in the interim

Terminating an established patient without proper notice — especially one with an active, monitoring-dependent condition — constitutes abandonment, a form of negligence. Proper withdrawal requires written notification (typically by certified mail), a reasonable transition period during which urgent care remains available, and assistance transferring records. Simply refusing to schedule the patient skips all of these safeguards.

During a busy clinic day, a medical assistant tells a needle-phobic patient who is refusing a scheduled injection: 'If you don't hold still, I'll have two nurses hold you down and give it anyway.' No one touches the patient. Which intentional tort has most precisely been committed?

Answer: Assault, because the patient was placed in apprehension of unauthorized contact even though none occurred

Assault is the act of creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent, unauthorized touching — no physical contact is required. Battery would require the actual unauthorized touching, which never occurred here. This distinction (assault = threat/apprehension, battery = contact) is a classic point of confusion, and a competent adult's refusal makes any forced injection unlawful regardless of medical benefit.

A CCMA working under a provider's supervision independently increases a patient's insulin dose over the phone based on reported glucose readings, without consulting the provider. The patient suffers hypoglycemia. Which legal doctrine could ALSO expose the supervising provider to liability for the assistant's action?

Answer: Respondeat superior, holding the employer/supervisor liable for acts of employees within the scope of employment

Respondeat superior ('let the master answer') makes an employer or supervising provider vicariously liable for the negligent acts of employees committed within the scope of their employment. The CCMA also exceeded their scope of practice — medical assistants may not independently adjust medication dosages — which creates direct liability for the assistant while respondeat superior extends exposure to the provider and practice. Res judicata and stare decisis are doctrines about court precedent and finality, not vicarious liability, and res ipsa loquitur concerns inferring negligence from an event, not assigning it to one party.