Television News and the Supreme Court

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliot E. Slotnick ◽  
Jennifer A. Segal
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Television News ◽  
The Supreme Court

scholarly journals Information Literacy and Instruction: Trustworthiness: What Are We Teaching?

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esther Grassian
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Information Literacy ◽  
Television News ◽  
Oxford English Dictionary ◽  
Trust In Government ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Steep Decline ◽  
Survey Results

Is the concept of trustworthiness new? The Oxford English Dictionary dates the first use of trust in English to 1225 and trustworthiness to 1662.1 Trustworthiness takes many forms, as does proof of whether or not something or someone deserves our trust. We license, certificate, credential, elect, and grant degrees to people who meet specified criteria, some more rigorous than others. As methods of communication have expanded, we have seen an enormous increase in first-hand reports (textual and visual) and opinions (signed and anonymous) in addition to more traditional reporting and documentation. We highly value trustworthiness in people, in government,2 and in “objects,” virtual and physical. Yet, a recent Pew study found that trust in government declined from a high of 72 percent in 1990 to a low of 36 percent in 2016. Between 1973 and 2016, trust in the Supreme Court declined from 45 percent to 36 percent, trust in public schools declined from 58 percent to 30 percent, and trust in “media” (newspapers and television news) declined from a combined 39 percent to 21 percent for newspapers and 20 percent for television news. These Pew survey results indicate a steep decline in trust in various entities for a range of 64 to 80 percent of respondents.3

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-203
Author(s):  
Kendra Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Elder Abuse ◽  
Skilled Nursing Facility ◽  
Pressure Sores ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Nursing Facility ◽  
Skilled Nursing ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 12-13
Author(s):  
LuAnn Haley ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Complex Concept ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document