Source: https://www.robertabelllaw.com/library/damages-for-loss-of-a-spouse.cfm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:58:25+00:00

Document:
Kentucky law had long included an anomalous concept that denied damages to a surviving spouse for the lost companionship and consortium of their deceased spouse, although such damages could be recovered where the spouse was injured and, as a result, their companionship for all practical purposes was lost. "Common sense must not be a stranger in the house of the law" wrote Justice Mary Noble for a unanimous Kentucky Supreme Court in this case at last ruling that a surviving spouse may recover damages for lost companionship when their spouse is killed by the negligence or wrongdoing of another.
reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals.
the hospital, and she lapsed into unconsciousness some nine minutes later.
patient had bled to death.
relationship between husband and wife, or wife and husband.
a double recovery through a wrongful death action claiming economic loss .
of consortium as a cause of action.
and the procedural rulings of the courts .
its meaning by amending the statute or enacts a different statute.
representative of the child's estate ever asserts a claim for wrongful death.
children such a personal claim ; that was done by the Court in Guiler.
declaring the common law as it did in Guiler.
under KRS 411 .145 do not cease at death.
general focus of this statute is compensatory in nature.
stranger in the house of the law." Cantrell v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins.
survives suffers more loss of consortium than one whose spouse dies?
there is no express limit on those damages.
the intention. Otherwise, there was no need for the legislature to act at all.
marriage is defined as a man and a woman being united "for life ."
Clark v. Hauck Manufacturing Co ., 910 S.W.2d 247 (Ky. 1995), and Brooks v.
otherwise, or can be read to do so, they are overruled.
short time that Mrs. Shreve lived.
damages were more limited than this Court reads the law as allowing.
Carrico v. City of Owensboro, 511 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Ky. 1974) .
through refusing treatment or referring them to other hospitals. Thornton v .
the physician : that he wrongfully screened, tested, and treated the patient.
him because he cannot pay, not to create a federal malpractice cause of action .
Nolen v. Boca Raton Cmtv. Hosp ., Inc., 373 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir . 2004).
the statute, § 1395dd(d)(2) .
capability, before transfer, which is arguably what happened here.
determination and later adopts it by signing it. § 1395dd(c) .
Certificate of Transfer as required by the statute.
statute: it asserts what a hospital must do, and creates liability for any failure .
obviously be determined at trial.
assuming that the hospital has an emergency department) would be as follows.
department whether or not a medical emergency exists.
no emergency medical condition, then later has problems or dies.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 1395
 § 1395