Confirm favorite deletion?
Health Law Keyed to Furrow
Muse v. Charter Hospital of Winston-Salem, Inc.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Joe Muse was a sixteen-year-old having suicidal thoughts and impulses when he was hospitalized in June 1986 for treatment related to his depression. His insurance coverage was due to expire on July 12, 1986. As that date approached, Dr. Barnhill, Joe's doctor, decided that a blood test was needed in order to determine a correct drug dosage. The blood test was scheduled for July 13. Barnhill requested that Charter Hospital of Winston-Salem, Inc. (Defendant) allow Joe to stay for a few more days and Joe's parents, the Muses (Plaintiffs), agreed to pay for the extra days. Joe was discharged on July 14 even though his blood results had not yet come back. Afterwards, Joe committed suicide on July 31. The Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant charging negligence for the policy of discharging patients when their insurance expired in spite of the medical judgment of the patient's doctors. The Plaintiffs were awarded by the jury $1 million in compensatory and $2 million in punitive damages. Defendant appealed, arguing that hospitals could not be liable for an action of this type.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.