Write a 1,000-1,250 word paper analyzing the 2016 Alaska Supreme Court case, Thomas v. Archer. Include the following in your analysis: 1. Did Dr. Archer breach her fiduciary duty to the Thomases? 2. D

******** Supreme Court case ****** v ******************************************************* ******* ***** **** Thomas v ArcherIntroductionThe case of ****** * ****** *** ********* ruled wholly ** ***** ** ** Archer and *** ******** The lower Court *** ruled **** ***** *** no ******** *** doctor *** no ********* ************** *** **** *** law ** promissory ******** did not hold *** *** **** **** review *** ****** ***** ruled ** **** with the lower ***** **** finding it ** be in error ** *** ***** ** ********** ******** *** ******** aims ** ******* *** ******** issues ** *** **** and ****** *** ******** ** *** ********* ****** ********* *** ********* ******** ** * contract *** ********** of fiduciary ************** *** the ************ ** promissory ******** ****** ******** *** ******** ** *** ******* CourtPart *** Archer *** not breach *** ********* responsibility to *** Thomases * fiduciary **** ** an existing ************ ******* two ******* that ******** *** ** the parties ** *** in *** best ******** ** *** ***** party ** **** ***** the ********* responsibility requires that *** ***** **** *** have * ******** ** ******** when addressing *** ***** of *** ********* ***** ***** The ************ ** ******* **** *** ****** ** ***** confidence *** ******** * person ******** *** fiduciary responsibility **** *** relationship with the ********* ** ** ******** **** take ******* or make ********* **** *** *********** ** *** ********* * breach ** the ********* **** should ******* the ********* ** * third party * fiduciary relationship ****** ******* *** ******** *** ** ****** ** ** ******* ******* ** ** ********** role as * ********* **** implies **** ** Archer ****** **** *** *********** **** interest when offering them treatmentAccordingly ** Archer did *** *** *** Thomases * fiduciary ************** ** contacting ***** ********* ******* Physicians ** ***** ******* fiduciary ********** are *** ******** ** contact *** insurance ********* ** ***** of *** patient They are *** *********** *** ******** the ******** ****** on ***** financial ******* **** fiduciary ************* between *** patient *** the ********* ******* ****** ******* ********* and offering ******* ****** Dr ****** *** ********** her ********* ************** **** *** *********** **** *** ******** transfer ** another facility The ********* ************** **** *** extend ****** the scope ** offering ***** ******* ********* *** expertise **** ****** ******* ** ******* *** ******* *** *********** treatment *** ********** *********** of ***** ********* **** *** ******** already **** the ********** for **************** ****** they **** to *** ******** ***** ****** *** *** **** ** inform **** **** **** had ** request *** preauthorization within *** ****** ** ********* responsibility It is ********* ********** **** *** **** ** ********* *** insurance ******* was **** *** ******** *** not **** Dr ****** ***** ********* responsibility ** ******* ** *** duties ** ******** ******* treatment and expertisePart 2The ******* **** ** ****** **** **** *** surmount ** * ******** since ** **** *** ******* *** the ******** ******** for ** ** ** ***** *** *** ***** ******** ** a ******** *** *** ***** ********** *** ************* ******** ***** ***** ***** Dr ****** ******* ** ****** *** insurance ******* ** ****** ** *** ******** *** Thomases *** ******** ** ***** *** ******** ****** being ******* *** ********* **** their ******* ***** will be refunded ** ****** **** ** ***** ** the *** that she **** ********** their financial ******** *** Thomases ** *** ***** **** showed ********** **** **** ******** **** the ******** They **** the hospital ******** **** ***** financial grievances *** **** ********* ******* ** ********** ***** The main ***** **** *** ******** is that it did *** have *** ************* *** *** ******** ** *** ********* ***** ***** *** Thomases ***** *** no ***** in the ******** ***** ****** *** benefit ***** suffice *** *** ******** ** *** doctorThe ******** *** ** consideration ** confer ** *** ******** ** the doctor ** ****** *** not ***** ** ******* from ********* *** ********* ******* *** had no ****** ******** in *** ********* ** *** ******** *** absence of *** ************* ***** **** no ******** exists between the doctor and *** patients ***** is ** ******** between *** ******** *** the ******** *** ** the ******* ** ************* *** hospital ** ** *** gains **** *** *********** ** ***** **** **** ** ********* ******** ** ****** *** ******** ******* ** ******* hospital ** is even detrimental ** their ********** ***** ** ***** **** **** *** incapable ** handling *********** ***** *** concern *** *** ******** at the **** *** ** ********* immediate treatment for *** ***** That ******** **** **** ***** **** left for ******* ********* despite *** absence of any assurance ** ******* *** ********* was ******* and ***** *** ** ********** *** *** ******** It ** **** possible ** *** **** *** ******* ** *** situation ****** *** doctor ** **** *********** **** were *** reasonable ** ***** *** ******* ** get on the Medivac ** ** ******** ** ******** **** *** hospital *** *** ****** ******* ************* ** *** **** ** ****** *** ******* ******* at another ****** *** **** ** ******** ** *** accurate ***** *** ******** and the ****** have ** ****** ** ******** ********* **** **** ********* ** ************* *** ******** is ********* ******* ***** ** **** ******** *** ******** and ****** ** ************* ** *** ******** ** ** ArcherPart **** ******** can enforce the promise Dr ****** **** ******* the ******** ** ********** ******** Promissory ******** ****** *** *********** of a ******* despite the ******* of ******** ******** ** * ******** *** ******** ** ********** ******** ****** ***** *** ******** ** ***** ***** ******** *** ***** financial issues Promissory ******** *** ******* *** requirement ** ************* **** ********* * ******* *** ******** have to ***** *** ******** ** the ***** ******** **** *** required ****** enforcing *** *********** ***** ******* is **** *** ******** *** ********** ************ that the promise **** ****** the ******** ****** ******** ***** The Thomases *** ********** ************ **** ** ****** will ****** ***** predicament ** *** ********* ******* **** **** **** *** ******** ***** receiving the ********* **** ** ****** and the ******** **** sort ***** ********* issues ** *** ********* company failed *** ****** element ** that *** promise ****** ****** action Dr Archer’s promise prompted *** ******** to ** **** *** ******* *** made the *********** not ** ****** *** ********* ******* ****** *** ** ***** *** ***** ******* is that ********* should ** ******* if *** ******* ** enforced ** ********** ******* to ****** *** ********* company *** to ** ********* that required the Thomases ** *** **** *** *** the ******* ***** ***** *** *** ***** ******** arise *** ******** *** ******* *** ******* ******* *** ******** ** promissory ************ 4: ConclusionThe ***** ****** ************ ** *** ****** ** contract ******** ********** ******** *** fiduciary duty Another ******** ****** of exploration is *** validity ** *** **** ******** Most of the ********* was in **** **** *** ***** ***** worth noting ** *** document that *** ******** ****** ********* *** ******** **** *** ********* ************** ***** *** Medivac *** ***** ***** ***** addressing ** *** limitations ** Dr ****** as ** ***** of the ******** Was *** ***** ** ***** **** an ********* ** behalf ** the hospital? ReferencesFinn P (2016) Public ****** *** ********* relations In Fiduciary duty *** *** *********** ***** *** ****** **************** * (2018) Promissory Estoppel Wisconsin Law JournalHoffman * * ***** ***** * * ****** ******** Consideration *** ******** *** **** * *** 85 *****

Click here to download attached files: Alaska Supreme Court case.docx