Neade v. Portes: a physician's fiduciary duty to disclose financial incentives.
作者信息
Simmons J
出版信息
Univ Toledo Law Rev. 2000 Winter;31(2):323-43.
PMID:12625321
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Neade v. Portes: a physician's fiduciary duty to disclose financial incentives.
Univ Toledo Law Rev. 2000 Winter;31(2):323-43.
2
Patient advocates or patient adversaries? Using fiduciary law to compel disclosure of managed care financial incentives.
San Diego Law Rev. 1998 Nov-Dec;35(4):951-92.
3
Fiduciary duty litigation experiences setbacks. Peterson v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. and Neade v. Portes.
Health Care Law Mon. 2001 Jan:3-6.
4
Financial incentives to limit services: should physicians be required to disclose these to patients?
Georgetown Law J. 1995;83:1821-47.
5
Breaking the learned helplessness of patients: why MCOs should be required to disclose finanial incentives.
Law Psychol Rev. 2002 Spring;26(1):49-95.
6
Disclosure--fiduciary duty--primary care physician incentives. Horvath v. Keystone Health Plan East, Inc.
Benefits Q. 2003;19(4):87-9.
7
Competing views of physician compensation incentives disclosure espoused. Neade v. Portes.
Hosp Law Newsl. 2000 May;17(7):1-6.
8
Physician will not be liable for failing to disclose financial conflict of interest. Neade v. Portes, 193 Ill. 2d 433, 739 N.E. 2d 496 (Ill. 2000).
J Healthc Risk Manag. 2001 Spring;21(2):41-3. doi: 10.1002/jhrm.5600210208.
9
Physician gag clauses--the hypocrisy of the Hippocratic Oath.
South Ill Univ Law J. 1997 Winter;21:313-34.
引用本文的文献
1
Ethics of the fiduciary relationship between patient and physician: the case of informed consent.
J Med Ethics. 2024 Dec 23;51(1):59-66. doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108539.
Zotero 插件