Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Obtaining Patient Consent

Client Alert

Patients have autonomy to choose what can and cannot be done to their bodies. Therefore, informed consent is required before any treatments or procedures commence. This is a stark contrast to the previously recognized paternalistic approach, which relies solely on the decision-making of the provider.

However, in order for patients to really choose whether or not to submit themselves to a particular healthcare service, they must actually understand what the service is. Therefore, patient consent should help the patient understand the risks and benefits, as well as any alternative treatment options.

Obtaining Consent

Merely having a patient sign an informed consent is not enough for a patient to consent. Rather, providers should have an active dialogue with patients, which starts with explaining a diagnosis, the proposed treatment including its benefits and risks, and any alternative treatment options and their benefits and risks. Providers should allow patients to ask any clarifying questions they may have. Only after this dialogue can a signed consent be obtained.

While some states recognize verbal consents as valid, others require that patients sign an authorization form to show that consent was actually obtained.

Capacity to Consent

Even if a provider engages in a dialogue with a patient clearly laying out the patient’s diagnosis, treatment options, and benefits and risks, some patients still cannot consent due to lack of capacity. If a patient cannot understand or appreciate the benefits, risks, and alternatives, or cannot demonstrate reasoning in their decision-making, the patient likely does not have capacity to give a valid informed consent. One way to determine whether a patient has capacity is to have the patient restate in their own words what they understood about the dialogue with their provider.

Further, while minor patients may seem to have capacity, they are incapable of providing informed consent (although there are some exceptions in states where the minor is emancipated or is being treated for specific illnesses, such as sexually transmitted diseases). Therefore, consent to treat minors will generally require a parent or guardian’s signature. 

Penalties

Failure to adequately obtain informed consent may result in consequences, including but not limited to medical malpractice lawsuits, loss of hospital privileges, or removal from preferred provider lists.

If you have any questions regarding patient consent in general, or whether your current process for obtaining informed consent is compliant with applicable state and/or federal law, please don’t hesitate to contact BMD Health Law Group Member Jeana M. Singleton at jmsingleton@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2001, or BMD Attorney Rachel Stermer at rcstermer@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2019.  


The Masks Are Back: New OSHA Regulations for Healthcare Employers

Employment Law After Hours is back with a News Break Episode. Yesterday, OSHA published new rules for healthcare facilities, including hospitals, home health employers, nursing homes, ambulance companies, and assisted living facilities. These new rules are very cumbersome, requiring mask wearing for all employees, even those that are vaccinated. The only exception is for fully vaccinated employees (2 weeks post final dose) who are in a "well-defined" area where there is no reasonable expectation that any person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 will be present.

New OSHA Guidance for Workplaces Not Covered by the Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard

On June 10, 2021, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for occupational exposure to COVID-19, but it applies only to healthcare and healthcare support service workers. For a detailed summary of the ETS applicable to the healthcare industry, please visit https://youtu.be/vPyXmKwOzsk. All employers not subject to the ETS should review OSHA’s contemporaneously released, updated Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace. The new Guidance essentially leaves intact OSHA’s earlier guidance, but only for unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers (“at-risk” meaning vaccinated or unvaccinated workers with immunocompromising conditions). For fully vaccinated workers, OSHA defers to CDC Guidance for Fully Vaccinated People, which advises that most fully vaccinated people can resume activities without wearing masks or physically distancing, except where required by federal, state, or local laws or individual business policies.

Employer Liability for COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

As employers encourage or require employees to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine, they should be aware of OSHA recording obligations and potential workers’ compensation liability. Though OSHA has yet to revise its COVID-19 guidance in response to the latest CDC recommendations, OSHA has revised its position regarding the recording of injury or illness resulting from the vaccine. Until now, OSHA required an employer to record an adverse reaction when the vaccine was required for employees and the injury or illness otherwise met the recording criteria (work-related, a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria). OSHA has reversed course and announced that it will not require recording adverse reactions until at least May 2022, irrespective of whether the employer requires the vaccine as a condition of employment. In its revised COVID-19 FAQs, OSHA states:

The New Rule 1.510 - Radical Change for Summary Judgement Procedure in Florida

In civil litigation, where both sides participate actively, trial is usually required at the end of a long, expensive case to determine a winner and a loser. In federal and most state courts, however, there are a few procedural shortcuts by which parties can seek to prevail in advance of trial, saving time, money and annoyance. The most common of these is the “motion for summary judgment”: a request to the court by one side for judgment before trial, generally on the basis that the evidence available reflects that a win for that party is legally inevitable and thus required. Effective May 1, 2021, summary judgment procedure in Florida has radically changed.

Vacating, Modifying or Correcting an Arbitration Award Under R.C. 2711.13: Three-Month Limitation Maximum; Not Guaranteed Amount of Time

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award. R.C. 2711.13 provides that “after an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to the arbitration may file a motion in the court of common pleas for an order vacating, modifying, or correcting the award.” Any such motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award “must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is delivered to the parties in interest.” In BST Ohio Corporation et al. v. Wolgang, the Court held the three-month period set forth in R.C. 2711.13 is not a guaranteed time period in which to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. 2021-Ohio-1785.