From our private database of 36,900+ case briefs...
Boyd v. Albert Einstein Medical Center
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
547 A.2d 1229 (1988)
Chardella Boyd (plaintiff) signed up for a group health plan provided by Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania (HMOP) (defendant). HMOP had brochures guaranteeing the quality care under its plan. Except for emergency situations, plan members were limited to choosing a primary doctor from a specific list. Also, a member needed to get a referral from a primary doctor before seeing a specialist. These limitations were cost-saving measures. The primary doctors who participated in the plan were independent contractors who were paid a certain amount for every member assigned to them. There was also a complex system that distributed the risk of the members’ actual treatment costs between HMOP and the participating doctors. Boyd visited her chosen primary doctor for a breast lump. This doctor referred Boyd to a specialist who also participated in the HMOP plan to biopsy the lump. The specialist accidentally poked Boyd’s chest cavity, and she was hospitalized for two days. After being released, Boyd continued to tell her HMOP doctors that she was having chest pain, fatigue, and vomiting issues. One night, Boyd woke with chest pain and went to the emergency room, where she was seen by one of her HMOP doctors. That doctor diagnosed Boyd with an inflammatory condition called Tietz’s syndrome. The doctor then scheduled Boyd to go to the doctor’s own office later for heart tests and sent her home to rest in the meantime. Having the tests at the doctor’s office created a delay but would be cheaper. When she got home, Boyd continued to have chest pain. Over the phone, Boyd’s HMOP doctor prescribed a pain medication. Several hours after being sent home from the hospital, Boyd died of a heart attack. Boyd’s estate and family sued the HMOP, arguing both that HMOP had breached its warranty of good health and that it was responsible for the malpractice of its participating doctors. The trial court ruled that Boyd had not presented facts that could make HMOP liable to Boyd for any malpractice and dismissed the case. Boyd appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Olszewski, J.)
Concurrence (McEwen, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 629,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 36,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.