Collaborative Caring: Stories and Reflections on Teamwork in Health Care

[Excerpt] There are many theoretical and conceptual books and countless articles that have explored issues of teamwork in general and teamwork in health care in particular. The editors, and many of the authors in this book, have read most, and have even written some of them. To tackle the issue of teamwork, we have, however, taken a different approach. Rather than write a theoretical book about what teamwork is, what it is not, where it exists in health care, what barriers prevent its implementation and how they can be removed, we have chosen instead to address these questions through narratives and reflections that vividly describe good teamwork as well as problems in creating, leading, and working on genuine teams. What we believe is too often lacking in the literature is a clear and compelling picture of what teamwork looks like on the ground, in the institutions where health care work is delivered and where teams play well, or don\u27t play well, on a daily basis. The question we ask here is thus: What is the state of play in most health care institutions? To describe the state of play, we have asked clinicians to write what we think of as where the rubber hits the road stories or reflections about the nature of teamwork in their own particular work setting. To gather these stories, we talked to many people in different health care disciplines. In the invitation for submissions we wrote the following: We are seeking short, concise narratives that describe a concrete example in which you personally have been involved. The idea here is not to focus so much on the individual doctor-patient, nurse-patient, therapist-patient communication but the teamwork that was involved in ensuring that the standard of care was met or exceeded. If the patient or family was involved, so much the better. Stories can deal with interprofessional or intraprofessional teamwork. On balance, we would prefer to have more stories about interprofessional or occupational teamwork. Nonetheless, we recognize that interprofessional work depends on the ability to create teamwork within an occupation or profession. Stories involving support staff, such as housekeepers who spoke up about a patient safety issue, are definitely within the purview of this book. We would also welcome personal reflections that would enhance our understanding of either how to produce genuine teamwork or the obstacles that stand in its way

\u3cem\u3eIndependent Ink\u3c/em\u3e at the Crossroads of Antitrust and Intellectual Property Law: The Court\u27s Holding Regarding Market Power in Cases Involving Patents and Implications in Cases Involving Copyrights

By eliminating the market power presumption for patent holders, Independent Ink calls into question the presumption\u27s continued validity for tying arrangements involving copyrights. While the Court\u27s holding directly applies only to patents, we present three reasons why, after Independent Ink, the presumption can no longer be viable in antitrust lawsuits challenging a tying arrangement involving a copyrighted product. First, the Court\u27s rationale for eliminating the presumption including citations to extensive academic writings, agency guidelines, and legislative amendments precludes the presumption\u27s continued application in any other context. Second, copyrights are significantly less likely than patents to confer market power because the scope of the limited monopoly granted by the copyright laws is narrower than that conferred by the patent laws. Therefore, once the Court has found the presumption to be invalid in the patent context, there is no reasonable basis for its continued application to tying arrangements involving copyrights. Third, as the Court\u27s tolerance toward tying arrangements has increased over the past thirty years, the Court has become increasingly reluctant to find the market power required to make tying arrangements per se illegal. Given Independent Ink\u27s holding that many tying arrangements, even those involving patents and requirements ties, are fully consistent with a free, competitive market, \u27 it would be anomalous to preserve a presumption that condemns all copyright tying arrangements without requiring any showing of market power or anticompetitive effect. In Part II of this article we review the history of the Court\u27s tying cases, chronicling the steady construction of the market power presumption as well as the Court\u27s increasing distrust of tying arrangements in general. We also note the Court\u27s particular antipathy toward tying arrangements involving intellectual property. We then describe the partial deconstruction of those presumptions, culminating in the recent abolition of the presumption of market power for patent holders in Independent Ink. In Part III, we argue that, consistent with the Court\u27s reasoning in the patent context, Independent Ink should signal the end of the market power presumption for copyright holders in antitrust cases. Accordingly, just as tying arrangements involving patented products are not condemned per se, tying arrangements involving copyrighted products should not be condemned per se under the antitrust laws unless the plaintiff is able to prove market power

Brief for Respondents. County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 137 S.Ct. 1539 (2017) (No. 16-3690), 2017 WL 696103

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the legal framework set out in Grnham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), apply to actions by police that foreseeably create a need for the use of force? 2. In an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where a house search that violates the Fourth Amendment results in the shooting of an innocent resident who did not know that the intruders were sheriff’s deputies, does a resident’s nonculpable response to the intrusion constitute a superseding cause that bars relief for the residents’ injur

\u3cem\u3eIndependent Ink\u3c/em\u3e at the Crossroads of Antitrust and Intellectual Property Law: The Court\u27s Holding Regarding Market Power in Cases Involving Patents and Implications in Cases Involving Copyrights

By eliminating the market power presumption for patent holders, Independent Ink calls into question the presumption\u27s continued validity for tying arrangements involving copyrights. While the Court\u27s holding directly applies only to patents, we present three reasons why, after Independent Ink, the presumption can no longer be viable in antitrust lawsuits challenging a tying arrangement involving a copyrighted product. First, the Court\u27s rationale for eliminating the presumption including citations to extensive academic writings, agency guidelines, and legislative amendments precludes the presumption\u27s continued application in any other context. Second, copyrights are significantly less likely than patents to confer market power because the scope of the limited monopoly granted by the copyright laws is narrower than that conferred by the patent laws. Therefore, once the Court has found the presumption to be invalid in the patent context, there is no reasonable basis for its continued application to tying arrangements involving copyrights. Third, as the Court\u27s tolerance toward tying arrangements has increased over the past thirty years, the Court has become increasingly reluctant to find the market power required to make tying arrangements per se illegal. Given Independent Ink\u27s holding that many tying arrangements, even those involving patents and requirements ties, are fully consistent with a free, competitive market, \u27 it would be anomalous to preserve a presumption that condemns all copyright tying arrangements without requiring any showing of market power or anticompetitive effect. In Part II of this article we review the history of the Court\u27s tying cases, chronicling the steady construction of the market power presumption as well as the Court\u27s increasing distrust of tying arrangements in general. We also note the Court\u27s particular antipathy toward tying arrangements involving intellectual property. We then describe the partial deconstruction of those presumptions, culminating in the recent abolition of the presumption of market power for patent holders in Independent Ink. In Part III, we argue that, consistent with the Court\u27s reasoning in the patent context, Independent Ink should signal the end of the market power presumption for copyright holders in antitrust cases. Accordingly, just as tying arrangements involving patented products are not condemned per se, tying arrangements involving copyrighted products should not be condemned per se under the antitrust laws unless the plaintiff is able to prove market power