U.S. Supreme Court to hear appeals from virtual doctor appointments


Posted September 23, 2019 07:02:48As part of a new ruling on temporary appointments in the Supreme Court, the court on Monday heard arguments over whether a physician’s virtual doctor appointment is a temporary appointment under the Constitution or a permanent appointment under state law.

The court was expected to issue its decision on Wednesday.

The case involved a man who was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer at a hospital in California but didn’t get a cancer cure.

He was charged with fraudulently obtaining a $1,000 appointment for a “virtual doctor” who was in a position to diagnose him.

In its brief to the court, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that the appointment was a temporary, a “comparatively rare event,” and that the man had no legal standing to contest the appointment.

In court papers, the lawyers argued that the state law providing for virtual doctor services was “legislatively invalid,” and they said that the court was “unable to recognize that the doctor is not a person” under state laws.

The case, which was scheduled to be heard Tuesday, was the latest to challenge the state’s requirement for medical offices to perform certain types of tests before providing services to people.

While the Supreme Justice is responsible for deciding whether the appointment is considered a temporary or permanent appointment, it is up to the lower court to determine whether the court can rule on the constitutionality of the state-mandated tests.

More from the Brief:The state has been under fire in recent years for the practice of charging people to have their tumors removed from their bodies.

In 2013, the U.K. Supreme, in an opinion that was later reversed by the U of T’s Law School, held that the practice was a form of coercion.

After that ruling, a British court in 2013 ruled that a man could not have been denied surgery based on a claim that he had a condition that would prevent him from performing surgery.

A federal appeals court in 2016 also struck down the practice, finding that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to a statement from the plaintiffs, “this is a landmark case that will affect thousands of American families and thousands of doctors, hospitals, and clinics across the country.”

The court’s decision is expected to come down in the next few days.

, , ,