Corporate
Jun. 23, 2006
Has the Ban on Corporations Practicing Medicine Become Outdated and Untenable?
Focus Column - By Jay Paik - 'One who practices a profession is directly responsible to his patient or client. Hence he cannot properly act in the practice of this vocation as an agent of a corporation or business partnership whose interests in the very nature of the case are commercial in character." Ezell v. Ritholz, 198 S.E. 419 (S.C. 1938).
By Jay Paik
'One who practices a profession is directly responsible to his patient or client. Hence he cannot properly act in the practice of this vocation as an agent of a corporation or business partnership whose interests in the very nature of the case are commercial in character." Ezell v. Ritholz, 198 S.E. 419 (S.C. 1938).
Generally, the corporate practice of medicine doct...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In