§

Midwest Division-MMC, LLC d/b/a Menorah Medical Center

362 NLRB No. 193 (N.L.R.B. 2015)
Midwest Division-MMC, LLC d/b/a Menorah Medical Center

25 Cited authorities

  1. Jaffee v. Redmond

    518 U.S. 1 (1996)   Cited 1,187 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her patients in the course of diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence"

  2. Trammel v. United States

    445 U.S. 40 (1980)   Cited 1,197 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because "[t]estimonial exclusionary rules and privileges contravene the fundamental principle that 'the public . . . has a right to every man's evidence,' . . . they must be strictly construed"

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.

    420 U.S. 251 (1975)   Cited 434 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness

  4. Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    440 U.S. 301 (1979)   Cited 227 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Natural Gas Utility District

    402 U.S. 600 (1971)   Cited 187 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding utility district was political subdivision under that standard

  7. Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

    351 U.S. 149 (1956)   Cited 223 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

  8. Memorial Hospital for McHenry Cty. v. Shadur

    664 F.2d 1058 (7th Cir. 1981)   Cited 289 times
    Holding that the deliberative process privilege did not apply where plaintiff "alleged that the defendants . . . used the Hospital committee apparatus discriminatorily to deny him staff privileges at the Hospital in furtherance of an unlawful restraint of trade"

  9. Canning v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013)   Cited 96 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a challenge qualifies as an "extraordinary circumstance"

  10. Virmani v. Novant Health Inc.

    259 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2001)   Cited 98 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that hospital's peer review records were not privileged from discovery where physician claimed that hospital's peer review process was conducted in a discriminatory manner

  11. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 29,544 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

  12. Section 60-437 - Waiver of privilege by contract or previous disclosure

    Kan. Stat. § 60-437   Cited 49 times

    A person who would otherwise have a privilege to refuse to disclose or to prevent another from disclosing a specified matter has no such privilege with respect to that matter if the judge finds that such person or any other person while the holder of the privilege has (a) contracted with a party against whom the privilege is claimed that he or she would not claim the privilege or, (b) without coercion, or without any trickery, deception, or fraud practiced against him or her, and with knowledge of

  13. Section 65-4922 - Medical care facilities; risk management program required; submission of plan; inspections and investigations; approval of plan; reports and records confidential

    Kan. Stat. § 65-4922   Cited 8 times
    In K.S.A. § 65-4922(g), the Kansas legislature created a privilege for any reports or records obtained by a hospital's risk management program by barring such documents from production in discovery or admissibility in certain legal proceedings.

  14. Section 65-4914 - Public policy relating to provision of health care

    Kan. Stat. § 65-4914   Cited 6 times

    It is the declared public policy of the state of Kansas that the provision of health care is essential to the well-being of its citizens as is the achievement of an acceptable quality of health care. Such goals may be achieved by requiring a system which combines a reasonable means to monitor the quality of health care with the provision of a reasonable means to compensate patients for the risks related to receiving health care rendered by health care providers licensed by the state of Kansas. K

  15. Section 65-4929 - Purpose of risk management programs; status of entities conducting programs; antitrust immunity

    Kan. Stat. § 65-4929   Cited 4 times

    (a) The legislature of the state of Kansas recognizes the importance and necessity of providing and regulating certain aspects of health care delivery in order to protect the public's general health, safety and welfare. Implementation of risk management plans and reporting systems as required by K.S.A. 65-4922, 65-4923 and 65-4924 and peer review pursuant to K.S.A. 65-4915 and amendments thereto effectuate this policy. (b) Health care providers and review, executive or impaired provider committees

  16. Section 28-52-4 - Standard-of-care determinations

    Kan. Admin. Regs. § 28-52-4

    (a) Each facility shall assure that analysis of patient care incidents complies with the definition of a "reportable incident" set forth at K.S.A. 65-4921. Each facility shall use categories to record its analysis of each incident, and those categories shall be in substantially the following form: (1) Standards of care met; (2) standards of care not met, but with no reasonable probability of causing injury; (3) standards of care not met, with injury occurring or reasonably probable; or (4) possible