Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Epstein
Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois, 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:
Plaintiff alleged that her treating doctor, Dr. Kowalski and her HMO, Defendant, were responsible for the negligent and tardy diagnosis of her tongue cancer. Plaintiff died during trial. Defendant did not employ Dr. Kowalski but operated as “a financing entity that arranges and pays for health care by contracting with independent medical groups and doctors.” Doctors in Defendant’s network are required to complete an application and meet with Defendant’s approval. Doctors were compensated on a per patient basis. Defendant maintained its quality assurance program. Plaintiff’s handbook does not mention that Dr. Kowalski is an independent contractor but instead refers to him as “your Share physician.” Defendant’s primary care physicians are required to approve patients’ medical requests and make referrals to specialists. Dr. Kowalski did not feel constrained by Defendant in making medicinal decisions. Plaintiff believed that Dr. Kowalski was an employee of Defendant.
- 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.