Health
your username
January 27, 2021
On Tuesday, a decision was issued in the case brought by a doctor against the United States. The opinion, rendered by the Second Circuit, resolves a question regarding whether the plaintiff’s actions received immunity under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act. The case also dealt with the notice requirements involved with the removal of a case to federal court.
According to the opinion, Dr. Razmzan was employed as a doctor in a Federally Supported Health Center in New York. As a part of his employment contract, Dr. Razmzan was required to not bill any services that he performed at the clinic in lieu of a direct salary. However, he was required and permitted to bill any inpatient services that he provided for the clinic’s patients in lieu of a higher salary. After being sued for malpractice involving an inpatient treatment, Dr. Razmzan removed the case to federal court and sought to dismiss the case under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The trial court acknowledged the immunity for the treatment Dr. Razmzan performed at the clinic, but stated that the inpatient treatment was not covered and Dr. Razmzan appealed.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell , Health Centers Assistance , Health Center , Second Circuit , Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance , Federally Supported Health Center , Federal Tort Claims , Feldesman Tucker Leifer , புதியது யார்க் , ஒன்றுபட்டது மாநிலங்களில் , ஆரோக்கியம் மையங்கள் உதவி , ஆரோக்கியம் மையம் , இரண்டாவது சுற்று , கூட்டாட்சியின் சித்திரவதை கூற்றுக்கள் ,