2019Unpublished venueRequires access

Fiduciary Principles in Health Care

Mark A. Hall

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

This chapter examines fiduciary principles in health care law. There is no unanimous agreement when it comes to the precise doctrinal consequences of labeling health care actors as fiduciaries in various contexts, such as personal injury, decisional authority, financial influence, and procedural rules. In the case of patients and physicians, certain attributes are said to constitute an archetypal fiduciary relationship, including agency, dependency, trust, and information asymmetry. Thus, many legal decisions and commentators argue that physicians have fiduciary responsibilities to patients. For courts, however, hospitals are not fiduciaries. They regard private hospitals as ordinary commercial enterprises. This chapter first provides an overview of arguments over whether physicians and non-physicians (for example, hospitals and health insurers) are “fiduciaries” before discussing health care fiduciaries’ duty of loyalty and duty of care, along with their other obligations such as duties of confidentiality and full disclosure. It also explores the ability of health care fiduciaries and patients to waive fiduciary duties, as well as how courts have addressed distinct causes of action for physicians’ breach of fiduciary duty. It shows that courts often invoke fiduciary concepts and terminology in discussing physicians’ obligations to patients, and that physician-patient (and other medical treatment) relationships have classic attributes of fiduciary status.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This chapter examines fiduciary principles in health care law. There is no unanimous agreement when it comes to the precise doctrinal consequences of labeling health care actors as fiduciaries in various contexts, such as personal injury, decisional authority, financial influence, and procedural rules. In the case of patients and physicians, certain attributes are said to constitute an archetypal fiduciary relationship, including agency, dependency, trust, and information asymmetry. Thus, many legal decisions and commentators argue that physicians have fiduciary responsibilities to patients. For courts, however, hospitals are not fiduciaries. They regard private hospitals as ordinary commercial enterprises. This chapter first provides an overview of arguments over whether physicians and non-physicians (for example, hospitals and health insurers) are “fiduciaries” before discussing health care fiduciaries’ duty of loyalty and duty of care, along with their other obligations such as duties of confidentiality and full disclosure. It also explores the ability of health care fiduciaries and patients to waive fiduciary duties, as well as how courts have addressed distinct causes of action for physicians’ breach of fiduciary duty. It shows that courts often invoke fiduciary concepts and terminology in discussing physicians’ obligations to patients, and that physician-patient (and other medical treatment) relationships have classic attributes of fiduciary status.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This chapter examines fiduciary principles in health care law. There is no unanimous agreement when it comes to the precise doctrinal consequences of labeling health care actors as fiduciaries in various contexts, such as personal injury, decisional authority, financial influence, and procedural rules. In the case of patients and physicians, certain attributes are said to constitute an archetypal fiduciary relationship, including agency, dependency, trust, and information asymmetry. Thus, many legal decisions and commentators argue that physicians have fiduciary responsibilities to patients. For courts, however, hospitals are not fiduciaries. They regard private hospitals as ordinary commercial enterprises. This chapter first provides an overview of arguments over whether physicians and non-physicians (for example, hospitals and health insurers) are “fiduciaries” before discussing health care fiduciaries’ duty of loyalty and duty of care, along with their other obligations such as duties of confidentiality and full disclosure. It also explores the ability of health care fiduciaries and patients to waive fiduciary duties, as well as how courts have addressed distinct causes of action for physicians’ breach of fiduciary duty. It shows that courts often invoke fiduciary concepts and terminology in discussing physicians’ obligations to patients, and that physician-patient (and other medical treatment) relationships have classic attributes of fiduciary status.

Key concepts: Fiduciary, Duty of loyalty, Duty of care, Duty, Health care, Business, Agency (philosophy), Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Fiduciary Principles in Health Care — Research Paper | ScholarLens