Answer each question in one or two paragraphs.

1. Compare and contrast contributory negligence with comparative negligence.

2. If HIPAA rules are stricter that state law, which standard should you follow and why? What if the state law was stricter?

3. Explain the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts.

4. At what point during the course of treatment of a new patient should notice of use and disclosure of health information, required under HIPAA, be give and why??

How would you like us to help you with this assignment?

yes

1. Contributory negligence and comparative negligence are both legal concepts used in determining liability in personal injury cases. Contributory negligence refers to a legal doctrine that completely bars a plaintiff from recovering damages if they are found to have contributed in any way to their own injury, regardless of the extent of the defendant's negligence. Comparative negligence, on the other hand, is a more flexible concept that allows the plaintiff to recover damages proportionate to the defendant's degree of fault, even if the plaintiff is partially responsible for the injury. Under comparative negligence, the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff is reduced by their percentage of fault. The primary difference between the two is that contributory negligence is an all-or-nothing approach, while comparative negligence allows for a fairer distribution of liability based on the actual fault of the parties involved.

2. When it comes to conflict between HIPAA rules and state laws regarding healthcare privacy, the general rule is to follow the stricter standard in order to ensure compliance. In this scenario, if HIPAA rules are stricter than state laws, it is advisable to follow the HIPAA standard to protect patient privacy and avoid potential legal consequences. The stricter standard provides a higher level of protection for patient information and ensures uniformity in compliance. On the other hand, if state law is stricter than HIPAA rules, it is important to follow the state law requirements to maintain compliance with local regulations and avoid penalties that might be imposed by the state authorities.

3. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a specific type of case. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving federal law, constitutional issues, disputes between states, bankruptcy, federal crimes, and cases involving foreign governments or treaties. This jurisdiction is derived from the United States Constitution and federal statutes. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases that fall within the specific categories authorized by law. If a case does not involve a federal question or fall within any of the enumerated categories, it will generally be outside the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts and must be brought in state courts.

4. Under HIPAA, the notice of use and disclosure of health information should generally be given to a new patient at the earliest possible opportunity during the course of their treatment. Ideally, this notice should be provided before any actual treatment or the disclosure of any health information takes place. Providing this notice informs the patient about their privacy rights, how their information may be used or disclosed, and their right to request restrictions on the use of their information. By providing this notice early on, it allows the patient to make informed decisions about their healthcare and privacy preferences. Ultimately, the timing of providing this notice may vary depending on the circumstances, but it is important to do so as soon as possible to comply with HIPAA requirements and respect the patient's rights.