This Article discusses potential legal liability for adverse effects resulting from reuse of disposable hemodialysis equipment. After explaining the dialysis process and the health risks involved with the reuse of dialyzers, the Article outlines possible theories of recovery for injured dialysis patients. The Article describes the possibility of recovery under a negligence theory against either the treating physician or the institutional provider, and includes a discussion of applicable statutory law. The remainder of the Article discusses possible recovery under the theory of strict liability.

Good Samaritan laws provide legal immunity to persons who assist in medical emergencies. Because good Samaritan laws eliminate the common law right of victims to secure redress for their injuries, these statutes raise certain constitutional questions. The Article begins by examining the vulnerability of good Samaritan statutes to federal constitutional attack on substantive due process and equal protection grounds. It then considers the susceptibility of such laws to state constitutional attack on the same grounds. The Article concludes that while such statutes are not likely to violate federal substantive due process and equal protection provisions, they may be held unconstitutional on similar state grounds.

Peer Review Committees (PRCs) that aid insurance companies in evaluating chiropractic treatments and fees have been the focus of recent court challenges. Some practitioners have argued that PRC activities constitute price fixing in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. PRCs have been successful thus far in claiming an exemption from antitrust scrutiny as a “business of insurance” within the meaning of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This Note contends that PRCs are not exempt from antitrust regulation; since PRCs do not spread risks and are involved in inter-rather than intra-industry agreements, their activities do not fall within the narrowly defined “business of insurance” exemption.

The Note then analyzes the merits of the price fixing allegations under both the “per se” standard and the “rule of reason.” First, the Note concludes that the unique nature of the health care market and the legitimate functions served by peer review make the application of a per se standard inappropriate. Second, under the rule of reason, the Note indicates that peer review encourages efficient and innovative health care practices while it deters the escalation of health care costs. The Note concludes that the net effect of peer review is not anticompetitive, especially since PRCs lack the coercive power to compel compliance with the recommendations.

The federal Truth in Lending Act requires creditors to comply with complex disclosure requirements whenever they engage in consumer credit transactions. In light of procedures adopted by hospitals and health care professionals which permit payment for services over time, there is some question as to whether these groups may be considered creditors within the meaning of the Act and therefore subject to the Act’s disclosure requirements. In Bright v. Ball Memorial Hospital, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that a hospital can be a creditor with respect to certain hospital-patient transactions. However, the court found that the defendant had not consummated consumer credit transactions with the plaintiffs and consequently had not violated the Act by failing to make disclosures.

This Case Comment contends that although the court correctly determined that a hospital, in certain circumstances, may be subject to the Act, it incorrectly held that Ball Memorial failed to consummate consumer credit transactions with the plaintiffs. This Case Comment also discusses the circumstances under which a hospital should be considered a creditor for purposes of the Truth in Lending Act and recommends that hospitals offering installment payment plans routinely comply with disclosure requirements of the Act.