Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
BUL 4602 Hospital v Manlove and Helling
Module 4: Case Briefs
Lawyers approach legal issues with structured, thorough analysis. To learn health law material, it is helpful to apply a similar approach. The standard approach for legal analysis is called IRAC (Links to an external site.), for:
ISSUE 2) RULE 3) ANALYSIS 4) CONCLUSION
It is helpful to apply this approach in analyzing a case. Focusing on the analysis of a particular case is called “briefing” the case. In doing a brief, you should do the following.
Identify significant legal issue(s) in the case.
For each issue, identify the legal rule that is relevant for that issue
Use the legal rule to then analyze the facts of the case.
In analyzing, break the rule down into different requirements.
Address each requirement of that legal rule.
Use a relevant fact to analyze each requirement.
Then, connect the facts to the rule with an appropriate explanation.
Finally, make a reasonable conclusion based on your analysis?
In analyzing a particular case, one recommended format is the following:
FORMAT FOR BRIEFING CASES
CASE NAME
FACTS: RELEVANT FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE PROCEDURAL HISTORY
ISSUE(S): LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT COURT IS RESOLVING
DECISION: DECISION OF COURT ON ISSUE(S) RESOLUTION OF CASE
REASONS: RATIONALE FOR DECIDING THE CASE INCLUDE RULE PLUS ANALYSIS LEADING TO CONCLUSION
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS: SIGNIFICANCE OF LAW/CASE TO BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION
How does this case apply to work as a healthcare administrator?
How does this case and its outcome apply to work as a manager in a healthcare facility?
This format uses the IRAC structure, but it also has
(A) a compilation of relevant facts at the beginning,
(B) the decision of the court whose opinion you are reading, and
(C) managerial implications.
By listing the relevant facts, you will start to think about what seems to be the important facets of the case. This list of facts can be helpful later when you are doing your analysis, because reviewing these facts can sometimes help you develop your analysis: when you get stuck on what to do next in your analysis, look back at the facts, and see if one of those facts can help you get started again. The issue is the starting place of your analysis, and the decision is a possible end (in writing your brief, you do not always have to agree with the decision of the court). Knowing the start and end can also help you sometimes in doing the analysis. Finally, when you are done with the legal analysis, you should step back and ask yourself, what does this all mean for you as a health care executive or administrator?
Wilmington General Hospital v. Manlove
Helling v. Carey
Utilize the APA reference guidelines tab in your table of content.
Check your page headings and numbers
Check your margins
Proofread and spell check (twice)
BUL 4602 Hospital v Manlove and Helling
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
|