Garantie de satisfaction à 100% Disponible immédiatement après paiement En ligne et en PDF Tu n'es attaché à rien 4.2 TrustPilot
logo-home
Examen

CPMSM - Key Credentialing Cases UPDATED ACTUAL Exam Questions and CORRECT Answers

Note
-
Vendu
-
Pages
6
Qualité
A+
Publié le
17-03-2025
Écrit en
2024/2025

CPMSM - Key Credentialing Cases UPDATED ACTUAL Exam Questions and CORRECT Answers Darling v. Charleston Memorial Community Hospital - CORRECT ANSWER have proper supervision; Case set aside the Charitable Immunity Doctrine. - Failure to Hospital liable for negligent treatment resulting in amputation of teenager's leg nurses failed to monitor; physician failed to consult; hospital claimed that charitable immunity doctrine limited damages to its insurance.

Montrer plus Lire moins
Établissement
CPMSM
Cours
CPMSM









Oups ! Impossible de charger votre document. Réessayez ou contactez le support.

École, étude et sujet

Établissement
CPMSM
Cours
CPMSM

Infos sur le Document

Publié le
17 mars 2025
Nombre de pages
6
Écrit en
2024/2025
Type
Examen
Contenu
Questions et réponses

Sujets

Aperçu du contenu

CPMSM - Key Credentialing Cases
UPDATED ACTUAL Exam Questions and
CORRECT Answers
Darling v. Charleston Memorial Community Hospital - CORRECT ANSWER - Failure to
have proper supervision; Case set aside the Charitable Immunity Doctrine.


Hospital liable for negligent treatment resulting in amputation of teenager's leg nurses failed to
monitor; physician failed to consult; hospital claimed that charitable immunity doctrine limited
damages to its insurance.


Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital - CORRECT ANSWER - Negligent
credentialing; Failure of initial credentialing process.


Hospital liable to patient injured by physician who had failed to disclose pending malpractice
cases and lied about privileges at other hospitals; should have verified information.


Elam v. College Park Hospital - CORRECT ANSWER - Negligent Credentialing


Hospital liable for podiatrist's negligence; failed to obtain malpractice claims data although
medical records department aware of claims. Podiatrist.


Patrick v. Burget - CORRECT ANSWER - Anti-competitive peer review; HCQIA;
Violation of Federal Anti-trust Laws


Physicians conducted peer review for anti-competitive reasons liable for violating federal anti-
trust laws.


Robinson v. Magovern - CORRECT ANSWER - Hospitals May Determine Proper
Limitation on Competition Within the Hospital and Surrounding Areas - careful and thorough

, adherence to bylaws that contain objective criteria required. Denial of application is not a
restraint of trade.


MD brought antitrust suit because he was denied privileges. Hospital did this based on shortage
of OR space, unfavorable recommendation, failure to publish MD on seven other staffs and
would probably not be able to contribute to hospital teaching program.


Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center - CORRECT ANSWER - Disruptive Behavior Must
be Patient Care Related


Denial of application based on inability to work with others; no quality of care problems.


Rao v. Auburn General Hospital - CORRECT ANSWER - Disruptive Behavior.
Personality May Be Considered If Affects Ability to Practice or Hospital Operations - personality
problems must affect the workings of the hospital.


Hospital denied privileges to MD after receiving reports from other hospitals on termination/
restriction of privileges. Other hospitals also reported substandard work and emotional instability


Boyd v. Albert Einstein Medical Center - CORRECT ANSWER - Ostensible agency;
MCO liable for practitioners action.


IPA-type HMO advertised as providing medical care held liable for member MD's negligence.


Harrell v. Total Health Care - CORRECT ANSWER - Negligent Credentialing; Failure to
Credential


State law granted immunity to non-profit health plans; MCO not liable for negligent
credentialing.


McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania - CORRECT ANSWER -
Duty to select and monitor providers; Negligent Credentialing; Ostensible Agency.

Faites connaissance avec le vendeur

Seller avatar
Les scores de réputation sont basés sur le nombre de documents qu'un vendeur a vendus contre paiement ainsi que sur les avis qu'il a reçu pour ces documents. Il y a trois niveaux: Bronze, Argent et Or. Plus la réputation est bonne, plus vous pouvez faire confiance sur la qualité du travail des vendeurs.
MGRADES Stanford University
Voir profil
S'abonner Vous devez être connecté afin de pouvoir suivre les étudiants ou les formations
Vendu
1076
Membre depuis
1 année
Nombre de followers
102
Documents
68972
Dernière vente
1 jours de cela
MGRADES (Stanford Top Brains)

Welcome to MGRADES Exams, practices and Study materials Just think of me as the plug you will refer to your friends Me and my team will always make sure you get the best value from the exams markets. I offer the best study and exam materials for a wide range of courses and units. Make your study sessions more efficient and effective. Dive in and discover all you need to excel in your academic journey!

3.8

171 revues

5
73
4
30
3
46
2
8
1
14

Récemment consulté par vous

Pourquoi les étudiants choisissent Stuvia

Créé par d'autres étudiants, vérifié par les avis

Une qualité sur laquelle compter : rédigé par des étudiants qui ont réussi et évalué par d'autres qui ont utilisé ce document.

Le document ne convient pas ? Choisis un autre document

Aucun souci ! Tu peux sélectionner directement un autre document qui correspond mieux à ce que tu cherches.

Paye comme tu veux, apprends aussitôt

Aucun abonnement, aucun engagement. Paye selon tes habitudes par carte de crédit et télécharge ton document PDF instantanément.

Student with book image

“Acheté, téléchargé et réussi. C'est aussi simple que ça.”

Alisha Student

Foire aux questions