test Browse by Author Names Browse by Titles of Works Browse by Subjects of Works Browse by Issue Dates of Works
       

Advanced Search
Home   
 
Browse   
Communities
& Collections
  
Issue Date   
Author   
Title   
Subject   
 
Sign on to:   
Receive email
updates
  
My Account
authorized users
  
Edit Profile   
 
Help   
About T-Space   

T-Space at The University of Toronto Libraries >
Journal of Medical Internet Research >
Volume 2 (2000) >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/4594


Title: Rating the "Raters": Legal Exposure of Trustmark Authorities in the Context of Consumer Health Informatics
Authors: Terry, Nicolas P
Keywords: Abstract
Issue Date: 13-Sep-2000
Publisher: Gunther Eysenbach; Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, Toronto, Canada
Citation: Nicolas P Terry. Rating the "Raters": Legal Exposure of Trustmark Authorities in the Context of Consumer Health Informatics. J Med Internet Res 2000;2(suppl2):e8 <URL: http://www.jmir.org/2000/suppl2/e8/>
Abstract: [This item is a preserved copy and is not necessarily the most recent version. To view the current item, visit http://www.jmir.org/2000/suppl2/e8/ ] There are three areas of potential legal exposure for an organization such as a trustmark authority involved in ehealth quality rating. First, an ehealth provider may make a complaint about negative or impliedly negative ratings rendered by the ratings body (false negative). Typically, a negative ratings complaint would rely on defamation or product disparagement causes of action. In some cases such complaints could be defended on the basis of absence of malice (US). Second, the rating body might render a positive rating on ehealth data that a third party allegedly relied upon and suffered injury (false positive). While the primary cause of action would be against the ehealth data provider, questions may arise as to possible liability of the trustmark authority. For example, some US liability exposure is possible based on cases involving the potential liability of product warrantors, trade associations and certifiers or endorsers. Third, a ratings body may face public law liability for its own web misfeasance. Several risk management approaches are possible and would not necessarily be mutually exclusive. These approaches will require careful investigation to assess their risk reduction potential and, in some cases, legislation.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/4594
ISSN: 1438-8871
Other Identifiers: doi:10.2196/jmir.2.suppl2.e8
Rights: Copyright (cc) Retained by author(s) under a Creative Commons License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Appears in Collections:Volume 2 (2000)

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
jmir.html3.72 kBHTMLView/Open

Items in T-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

uoft