Posted: April 24th, 2025

Discussion Post/ peer Reponses

This discussion wraps up several of the topics discussed this semester, including standard of care, negligence, quality, peer review, and credentialing. I have randomly divided you into two large groups for this discussion (aka large group discussion). Each of you has been assigned a case:

Last name beginning with A-G – Read opinion on

Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital

Download Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital

. Your initial post will be on the Johnson v. Misericordia case. At least one of your two peer responses should be on the Gonzales v. Nork case.

In your post, briefly summarize your assigned case, including the key facts, the individuals involved, and the outcome (you may have to do research in addition to your assigned article). Discuss the significance of the legal precedents in the case. You will then write a personal reflection on the case. You need to use at least two sources to support your arguments (one source can be the article). Sources should be cited in APA format.

Reflection Prompts

• Do you agree with the outcome?
• How do you think this case impacted healthcare law and the rights of patients?
• Do you think anything could have changed the outcome?
• Discuss the role that HIM may play in these types of cases.

Peer Response Instructions:

Review the discussion posts and select two peers to respond to. At least one of your responses should be on the case different from your own. Your two peer responses should be substantive. Substantive responses are those that further develop the topic and pursue an understanding of the domain. Simple messages that offer agreement or simple encouragement are considered conversant, but are not considered substantive. You should also continue the dialogue with anyone who responds to your posts. 

Peer response prompts:

• Compare the two cases. What similarities or differences do you see in how the hospitals/families/courts handled each situation?
• Share your thoughts. Do you agree or disagree with their perspectives on the outcome?
• Provide an alternate perspective or play devil’s advocate. 
• Research the Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital case and compare the two cases (note: only one peer response may discuss the Darling case).
• Research the Helling v. Carey case and compare the two cases (note: only one peer response may discuss the Helling case).