Imagine a NY doctor doing telehealth medicine negligently caused the death of a Texas resident. Texas has no legitimate interest in that because the doctor is out of state?
Imagine a NY doctor doing telehealth medicine negligently caused the death of a Texas resident. Texas has no legitimate interest in that because the doctor is out of state?
If a doctor commits malpractice, in person or by telehealth, the cause of action is in the injured party, not the state. The state can revoke the doctor's license, which of course is irrelevant in this case. The real issue for telehealth in general is whether a law that requires someone to have a state license to practice telehealth is enforceable against someone not in the state. If the Extremes say yes then our whole system of jurisdiction and venue is in a mess.
Whether the plaintiff is the AG or the patient is not relevant legally speaking to the jurisdiction/enforcement issue. The injured Texas plaintiff is not required to litigate in a foreign jurisdiction (NY) to the advantage of the foreign doctor who violated Texas law causing harm in Texas. The courts of every state in the Union allow long arm suits of this nature and they are very common.
Consider a consumer fraud case. Fraudulent representations are made by a NY business in NY over the phone to the Texas consumer in Texas. The consumer or the AG may bring a lawsuit in Texas under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act against the NY company.
While I have not surveyed medical licensing statutes across the nation, I would guess that Texas is hardly unique in requiring that out of state practitioners performing telehealth be licensed in the state. ThatтАЩs certainly how practicing law works. If I give legal advice over the phone to someone in another state in which IтАЩm not barred, I could certainly be targeted for sanctions by the bar of that foreign jurisdiction for unauthorized practice of law.
And the relevant standard of care for medicine does vary between states. ItтАЩs one thing for a patient in Manhattan to self administer a medication with rare but life threatening side effects versus someone in a remote village of rural Alaska that can only be reached by sea plane. A doctor who is not familiar with the appropriate standard of care for Alaska should not practice medicine here.
My POINT is that the long arm statute in Texas doesn't reference crimes. They need to amend it if they are going to want to use it. You are referencing civil actions.
I already said I didn't want to continue this and I have no intention of playing the lawyer game of being expected to reply to a series of hypothetical scenarios.
Particularly here because I already noted that in the event of the bank account scenario you raised the state would have authority to sue the bank to seize the doctor's assets because it operates inside the state and so is subject to its jurisdiction.
But in your example here, does Texas have a "legitimate interest?" Yes: It has the legitimate interest of seeking to convince NY to act against the doctor (and I am prepared to assume that NY, where the negligence occurred, has laws against negligently causing a death).
Imagine a NY doctor doing telehealth medicine negligently caused the death of a Texas resident. Texas has no legitimate interest in that because the doctor is out of state?
If a doctor commits malpractice, in person or by telehealth, the cause of action is in the injured party, not the state. The state can revoke the doctor's license, which of course is irrelevant in this case. The real issue for telehealth in general is whether a law that requires someone to have a state license to practice telehealth is enforceable against someone not in the state. If the Extremes say yes then our whole system of jurisdiction and venue is in a mess.
Whether the plaintiff is the AG or the patient is not relevant legally speaking to the jurisdiction/enforcement issue. The injured Texas plaintiff is not required to litigate in a foreign jurisdiction (NY) to the advantage of the foreign doctor who violated Texas law causing harm in Texas. The courts of every state in the Union allow long arm suits of this nature and they are very common.
Consider a consumer fraud case. Fraudulent representations are made by a NY business in NY over the phone to the Texas consumer in Texas. The consumer or the AG may bring a lawsuit in Texas under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act against the NY company.
While I have not surveyed medical licensing statutes across the nation, I would guess that Texas is hardly unique in requiring that out of state practitioners performing telehealth be licensed in the state. ThatтАЩs certainly how practicing law works. If I give legal advice over the phone to someone in another state in which IтАЩm not barred, I could certainly be targeted for sanctions by the bar of that foreign jurisdiction for unauthorized practice of law.
And the relevant standard of care for medicine does vary between states. ItтАЩs one thing for a patient in Manhattan to self administer a medication with rare but life threatening side effects versus someone in a remote village of rural Alaska that can only be reached by sea plane. A doctor who is not familiar with the appropriate standard of care for Alaska should not practice medicine here.
My POINT is that the long arm statute in Texas doesn't reference crimes. They need to amend it if they are going to want to use it. You are referencing civil actions.
This IS a civil lawsuit: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Dr%20Carpenter%20Filed%20Petition.pdf
Ah, OK. Still has the burden of proof which could be dicey given the evidence that may not be admissible.
::sigh::
I already said I didn't want to continue this and I have no intention of playing the lawyer game of being expected to reply to a series of hypothetical scenarios.
Particularly here because I already noted that in the event of the bank account scenario you raised the state would have authority to sue the bank to seize the doctor's assets because it operates inside the state and so is subject to its jurisdiction.
But in your example here, does Texas have a "legitimate interest?" Yes: It has the legitimate interest of seeking to convince NY to act against the doctor (and I am prepared to assume that NY, where the negligence occurred, has laws against negligently causing a death).
Expect no further response.