Health Law Keyed to Furrow
Doe v. Medlantic Health Care Group, 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:
Doe (Plaintiff) held two jobs, one with a federal agency and the other as a janitor for a company providing the State Department with cleaning services. One of Plaintiff's co-workers at the State Department, Tijuana Goldring, also worked at Washington Hospital Center (WHC), where Plaintiff was being treated for HIV. Not long after his visit to the clinic, Plaintiff found out that his co-workers at the State Department knew of his illness and he was then extremely ridiculed because of it. Once Plaintiff realized that Goldring was behind the rumors about his medical condition, he sued Goldring for invasion of privacy and sued Medlantic Health Care Group, Inc. (Defendant), the owner of WHC, for breach of confidential relationship. Goldring was later dismissed from the suit, as the jury learned that Goldring's disclosure was not within the scope of her employment at WHC. However, the jury ruled in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant and awarded damages of $250,000 on the breach of confidence relationship claim. But the trial judge found that Plaintiff's claim was time barred by the relevant statute of limitations and granted a motion for judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
- 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.