Bohn v. Providence Health Services – Washington

HEALTH LAW

Peter Graham

In Bohn v. Providence Health Services – Washington, 484 P.3d 584 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that a healthcare provider was not immunized under Alaska’s Health Care Decisions Act (HCDA) when the provider denied decisionmaking authority to a patient’s agent and surrogate under the good faith belief that the patient’s agent and surrogate were not acting in the patient’s best interest. (Id. at 597). Bohn executed a power of attorney for healthcare, naming his parents as his healthcare agents with the authority to make medical decisions on his behalf in the event of his incompetence or incapacitation. (Id. at 586). Bohn was later hospitalized and placed in psychiatric observation after suffering from insomnia, disorientation, seizures, and hallucinations. (Id. at 587). Bohn’s condition appeared to render him unable to make medical decisions for himself. (Id.). Bohn’s healthcare providers administered to him various medications which his parents strongly and repeatedly objected to under their decisionmaking authority granted by the power of attorney. (Id. at 577–78). The providers continued with treatment after determining that Bohn’s parents were not acting in his best interest, for which Bohn later filed suit. (Id. at 588–89). The supreme court reversed the lower court’s determination that the HCDA granted immunity to healthcare providers that declined to comply with the medical decisions of a patient’s agent or surrogate if, while acting in accordance with generally accepted health care standards, the providers determined in good faith that the agent or surrogate was not acting in the patient’s best interest. (Id. at 596–97). Rather, the supreme court held that a healthcare provider seeking immunity under the HCDA in such circumstances must demonstrate two showings of good faith: the provider must act in good faith and in accordance with generally accepted healthcare standards, as well as have a separate good faith belief that the agent or surrogate lacked decisionmaking authority over the patient. (Id. at 594). Because the provider could not satisfy the second showing, it could not claim immunity for declining to comply with the parents’ decisions on these grounds; notwithstanding, the court noted that other bases for immunity under the HCDA were potentially available. (Id. at 597). The supreme court thus held that a healthcare provider did not benefit from immunity under the HCDA when the provider denied decisionmaking authority to a patient’s agent and surrogate under the good faith belief that the patient’s agent and surrogate were not acting in the patient’s best interest. (Id. at 597).

Bohn v. Providence Health Services – Washington

HEALTH LAW

Peter Graham

In Bohn v. Providence Health Services – Washington, 484 P.3d 584 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that a healthcare provider was not immunized under Alaska’s Health Care Decisions Act (HCDA) when the provider denied decisionmaking authority to a patient’s agent and surrogate under the good faith belief that the patient’s agent and surrogate were not acting in the patient’s best interest. (Id. at 597). Bohn executed a power of attorney for healthcare, naming his parents as his healthcare agents with the authority to make medical decisions on his behalf in the event of his incompetence or incapacitation. (Id. at 586). Bohn was later hospitalized and placed in psychiatric observation after suffering from insomnia, disorientation, seizures, and hallucinations. (Id. at 587). Bohn’s condition appeared to render him unable to make medical decisions for himself. (Id.). Bohn’s healthcare providers administered to him various medications which his parents strongly and repeatedly objected to under their decisionmaking authority granted by the power of attorney. (Id. at 577–78). The providers continued with treatment after determining that Bohn’s parents were not acting in his best interest, for which Bohn later filed suit. (Id. at 588–89). The supreme court reversed the lower court’s determination that the HCDA granted immunity to healthcare providers that declined to comply with the medical decisions of a patient’s agent or surrogate if, while acting in accordance with generally accepted health care standards, the providers determined in good faith that the agent or surrogate was not acting in the patient’s best interest. (Id. at 596–97). Rather, the supreme court held that a healthcare provider seeking immunity under the HCDA in such circumstances must demonstrate two showings of good faith: the provider must act in good faith and in accordance with generally accepted healthcare standards, as well as have a separate good faith belief that the agent or surrogate lacked decisionmaking authority over the patient. (Id. at 594). Because the provider could not satisfy the second showing, it could not claim immunity for declining to comply with the parents’ decisions on these grounds; notwithstanding, the court noted that other bases for immunity under the HCDA were potentially available. (Id. at 597). The supreme court thus held that a healthcare provider did not benefit from immunity under the HCDA when the provider denied decisionmaking authority to a patient’s agent and surrogate under the good faith belief that the patient’s agent and surrogate were not acting in the patient’s best interest. (Id. at 597).