Is a patient legally obligated to pay for non-emergency medical services that were not requested by the patient? Is a patient required to pay for non-emergency services they did not request from a medical provider? For example, a radiology clinic takes an x-ray and then sends it to a 3rd party radiologist for interpretation without the patient having requested any analysis of the x-ray nor having participated in the selection of the third party who would perform the analysis. I view this as the medical equivalent of cleaning someone's windshield at a red light without them asking for it and then demanding money for the windshield washing service. If that's not so, why is the medical industry treated differently than other services such as painters; if I asked someone to paint my house, and then they also decided to paint my shed without me asking, no one would expect that I be obligated to pay the painter for painting my shed. I understand that in emergency medical situations, it may be implied that the patient cannot consent or decline services, so it is by default considered to be agreed to. This question is about non-emergency services only.
Presumably you consented to have an x-ray. It is a reasonable assumption that it was not your intention to simply be given the films without interpretation by a radiologist. If that was your intention then the obligation would be on you to make that clear since it is so far from ordinary practice that no reasonable person could know that. To use your analogy it would be like you asking to have your window washed but not wanting to have the soapy water rinsed off afterwards (assuming these were separately billable services). Further, rights and obligations under contracts are transferable by default. So it is perfectly legitimate for the lab to outsource the radiography without having to ask you.
No one is required to have Public Liability Insurance If a contractor (or householder) wants PL insurance they are free to take it out but there is no legal requirement to do so. There may be contractural requirements. For example, a mortgagee may require a mortgagor to have property insurance and PL usually comes bundled with this (but check your policy because it may not be so). Or a householder principal may require their contractor to have PL insurance but a wise principal also requires evidence of cover. Whether a person has PL insurance or not, they can be liable to the public for damage. Insurance does not remove liability, an insurer just indemnifies their insured from the costs of defending or settling a claim. Liability In general, the head of claim for liability is typically negligence. Whether a person is negligent depends on if they had a duty of care and failed in that duty among other things (see Is there liability for pure accidents?). The contractor could be liable. The householder could be liable. Both could be liable. Neither could be liable. In normal circumstances, a plaintiff will sue everyone they can think of. At that point, it would be nice to have insurance so you can say to your insurer: &quot;You deal with it.&quot;
Can individuals spend money acquired in settlements that include an NDA? is the party that receives the payment allowed to actually use it? Yes. Payment of a substantial sum is oftentimes the main or only incentive for the injured party to bind himself in an NDA. A prohibition to spend that money would de facto nullify the benefit without which the party would have declined the NDA. Sandman isn't otherwise wealthy, if he suddenly buys a Lamborghini or a private jet, that money must have come from CNN. So doesn't this violate his NDA? No, typically it does not. Depending on (1) who the parties are, and (2) the hitherto divulged details of the controversy, the public might infer anyway --and with reasonable certainty-- who must have paid a substantial sum to settle the dispute. Thus, plaintiff Sandmann's [hypothetical] purchase of luxurious items would not really provide the public with new information. Similarly, if instead of buying luxurious items the indemnified person spends that money on rather necessary expenses (be it medical, property &amp; casualty, etc.) ensuing from the injury, a prohibition to spend the money would lead to another absurdity: That of perpetuating or worsening the harm inflicted to the plaintiff who couldn't otherwise afford medical treatment, new living arrangements, or repairs/replacement of property, accordingly. If the payer thinks it is important enough, perhaps the NDA could include terms requiring the payee to use some extent of discretion as to the pace of spending the money. However, such need on the payer's part seems rare, and the injured person is likelier to decline the NDA altogether if the clauses for management of the compensation are unreasonable. What counts as disclosure with regards to Non-Disclosure Agreements? Any revelation, by the parties, that contravenes the terms and purpose of the NDA in that it would give non-parties information which cannot be ascertained from prior and/or independent publications and filings. That is otherwise hard to answer because it totally depends on the terms --and boilerplate-- of each NDA.
Hardly ever While all doctors in private practice has a contract with each of their patients: For most practical purposes clinical negligence lawyers can forget about these. It is not that contractual duties do not exist – all private medicine and surgery is performed pursuant to such duties – but that they rarely add anything to the parallel duty owed in tort. The courts have been very reluctant to imply a duty in contract which goes beyond the duty imposed by the common law of negligence. While tort damages aim to restore the plaintiff to the position they were in before the tort and contractural damages aim to place them in the position they would have been in had there been no breach, for medical malpractice there is no practical difference.
It is not insurance fraud to sell medical equipment which was paid for by an insurance company. Unless it was obtained fraudulently of course. Two warnings that probably do not apply to breast pumps: Make sure that you actually own it. Sometimes equipment is leased; the patient does not own it. Make sure that it is not a prescription item. You can't sell items which require a prescription.
It means what it literally says, that safety and effectiveness have not been established in certain contexts. The rationale behind saying this is §201.57 of 21 CFR 201, a regulation that mandates giving warnings. It is permitted to use a device or prescribe a substance where it is not yet proven that it is effective or safe for that usage, but you must not imply that it is perfectly safe and effective in all contexts. This part of the federal regulations dictates language aimed at particular scientific uncertainties. Insofar as a patient is expected to give informed consent for a treatment, informing the patient that a treatment is to some extent unproven is an essential part of the information that must be given for informed consent. So you can interpret it as a flag to the patient (or the prescribing doctor) that there is greater risk.
The answer by @Digital fire is not always correct. Some states have passed general-purpose "duty to rescue" statutes. The one I've been trained about is Vermont's (Cite as: 12 V.S.A. § 519) § 519. Emergency medical care (a) A person who knows that another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or herself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others. The statue goes on to provide good Samaritan protection and state the penalty for violating the statute: a fine of not more than $100. Digital Fire does refer to the Wikipedia article about a duty to act/rescue, but the lead of that article says it is referring to torts, that is, whether the person who wasn't assisted (or his/her estate) could bring a lawsuit against the person who didn't help. But the Vermont statute creates an offense with which the suspect could be charged in a criminal trial.
You sat in the chair, you agreed to the treatment. By doing so you implicitly agreed to pay the dentist his fee. Now, the price was not agreed beforehand so the exact amount is subject to negotiation. This negotiation is usually best pursued when you have the fillings in your teeth and the money still in your wallet - this is called "leverage". The amount that your insurer reimburses you is a matter entirely independent of how much you pay your dentist. However, the difference in your ability to recover the costs are a valid point to raise in your negotiation.