Reference no: EM13146953

Fact Pattern 9-1 (Questions 30-31 apply)

            Frank belongs to the same country club as his former physician, Dr. Bozo.  Frank recently started dating Dr. Bozo's former wife, Alice, and decided to find a new physician.  Frank found out that Dr. Bozo has been telling their mutual friends at the club about Frank's high blood pressure and problems with anxiety.  Frank is very angry, confronts Dr. Bozo on the golf course, and tells him that he is going to sue him under a federal law protecting medical information.  Dr. Bozo laughs and says in front of a number of Frank's golfing buddies, "I'm not surprised that you're going nuts and that you have high blood pressure - hanging out with Alice has done that to many a man."

30.      Refer to fact pattern 9-1.  Is there any federal law prohibiting Dr. Bozo from revealing Frank's medical history?

            A.  There is no such federal law.

            B.  There is a federal law called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that prohibits the revelation of private medical information by health care providers.

            C.  There is a federal law called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that prohibits the revelation of private medical information by health care providers.

            D. There is a federal law called the Physician-Nurse Privacy Act that prohibits the revelation of private medical information by health care providers.

31.      Refer to fact pattern 9-1.  What right of action, if any, would Frank have against Dr. Bozo?

            A.  He has no cause of action against Dr. Bozo because the law does not protect this type of invasion of privacy so long as Dr. Bozo was being truthful regarding his health condition.

            B.  He could sue Dr. Bozo under a federal statute enacted to protect privacy rights.

            C.  He could not sue Dr. Bozo directly under any federal statute enacted to protect privacy rights, but he could likely prevail in a common law action for the public disclosure of private facts.

            D.  He could not sue Dr. Bozo under federal law for invasion of privacy nor could he sue under a common law cause of action, but only because he was no longer Dr. Bozo's patient.

Fact Pattern 9-2 (Questions 32-33 apply)

Blake lives in a jurisdiction that applies joint and several liability along with the doctrine of contribution.  He was involved in a very unfortunate motor vehicle accident.  Tony hit Blake's new Mercedes in the rear just as Cathy crossed the center line and sideswiped him.  Blake's car was severely damaged, and Blake suffered from whiplash for a few weeks.  Blake sued both Tony and Cathy.  It was determined at trial that both Tony and Cathy were negligent, that Blake was not negligent, that Tony was 60% responsible for Blake's injuries, that Cathy was 40% responsible for Blake's injuries, and that Blake's total damages were $100,000. 

32.      Refer to fact pattern 9-2.  Assuming she has the financial resources or sufficient insurance, can Blake recover the entire $100,000 from Cathy?

            A.  Yes.

            B.  No, but only because she was found to be less at fault than Blake.

            C.  No, because joint and several liability is in effect.

            D.  Only if Blake can establish that Tony is insolvent can he recover the entire amount from Cathy.

33.      Refer to fact pattern 9-2.  Assume Tony or his insurer pays the entire amount and then attempts to recoup amounts from Cathy.  Could Cathy be held liable for any amounts?

            A.  Yes, she could be required to pay her proportional share under a contribution theory.

            B.  Yes, she could be required to pay her proportional share under an indemnification theory.

            C.  No, she could not be required to pay under either a contribution or an indemnity theory.

            D.  No, she could not be required to pay but only because she was less at fault.

Fact Pattern 9-3 (Questions 34-35 apply)

Alex and Blake got into a heated argument because Alex asked Blake's girlfriend out on a date.  Blake decided that he wanted to scare Alex and drew back his fist to hit Alex.  He stopped just as he was about to strike Alex in the nose.  Alex yelled out, "You didn't scare me.  I was ready for a fight!"  Later, Alex decides that he would like to sue Blake and asks your advice on issues involving assault and battery.

34.      Refer to fact pattern 9-3.  What would you tell Alex regarding whether he should sue Blake for committing an assault?

            A.  That it appears that the necessary elements are present for him to succeed in an action against Blake for assault so long as he can show apprehension of being struck.

            B.  That he could not win in an action for assault because he admitted that he was not afraid.

            C.  That he could not win in an action for assault because Blake did not actually strike him.

            D.  That he could not win in an action for assault because it appears that Blake's actions were justified.

35.      Refer to fact pattern 9-3.  What would you tell Alex regarding whether he should sue Alex for committing a battery? 

            A.  That it appears that the necessary elements are present for him to succeed in an action against Blake for battery so long as he can show apprehension of being struck.

            B.  That he could not win in an action for battery because he admitted that he was not afraid.

            C.  That he could not win in an action for battery because Blake did not actually strike him.

            D.  That he could not win in an action for battery because it appears that Blake's actions were justified.