title: Third-party payor decisions. Doctor, don't dare be intimidated by them!
abstract: The case of Wickline v. State forebodes a new tort: malpractice by a physician who unprotestingly complies with a third-party payor's hospitalization restrictions. Medi-Cal granted this patient only half the hospital stay extension requested by her physicians. Following discharge on the appointed date her condition deteriorated, and ensuing complications resulted in the need for leg amputation. The patient subsequently sued the State for injuries, and won. The State appealed and obtained a reversal of the judgment on the verdict. Despite the fact that the premature discharge led to the need for amputation, the decision to discharge the patient had been made by the physicians, not by Medi-Cal. Therefore, Medi-Cal was not liable.
mesh_terms: D002140:California; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007349:Insurance, Health, Reimbursement / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D007350:Insurance, Hospitalization / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D007902:Length of Stay / Q000191:economics; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008484:Medicaid / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008875:Middle Aged