46622 research outputs found
Sort by
Final Status Sheet
Get PDFhttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/colorado-house-and-senate-journals/1597/thumbnail.jp
Final Status Sheet
Get PDFhttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/colorado-house-and-senate-journals/1602/thumbnail.jp
Cumulative Senate Journal
Get PDFhttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/colorado-house-and-senate-journals/1605/thumbnail.jp
Guardianship Before and Following Hospitalization
No full textWhen ethics committees are consulted about patients who have or need court appointed guardians, they lack empirical evidence about several common issues, including the relationship between guardianship and prolonged, potentially medically unnecessary hospitalizations for patients. To provide information about this issue, we conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses using a retrospective cohort from Veterans Healthcare Administration. To examine the relationship between guardianship appointment and hospital length of stay, we first compared 116 persons hospitalized prior to guardianship appointment to a comparison group (n=348) 3:1 matched for age, diagnosis, date of admission, and comorbidity. We then compared 91 persons hospitalized in the year following guardianship appointment to a second matched comparison group (n=273). Mean length of stay was 30.75 days (SD=46.70) amongst those admitted prior to guardianship, which was higher than the comparison group (M=7.74, SD=9.71, F=20.75, p \u3c .001). Length of stay was lower following guardianship appointment (11.65, SD=12.02, t=15.16, p\u3c .001); while higher than the comparison group (M=7.60, SD= 8.46), differences were not associated with guardianship status. In a separate analysis involving 35 individuals who were hospitalized both prior to and following guardianship, length of stay was longer in the year prior (M = 23.00, SD = 37.55) versus after guardianship (M= 10.37, SD= 10.89, F=4.35, p=.045). In qualitative analyses, four themes associated with lengths of stay exceeding 45 days prior to guardianship appointment were: administrative issues, family conflict, neuropsychiatric comorbidity, and medical complications. Our results suggest that persons who are admitted to hospitals, and subsequently require a guardian, experience extended lengths of stay for multiple complex reasons. Once a guardian has been appointed, however, differences in hospital lengths of stay between patients with and without guardians are reduced
Producing Procedural Inequality Through the Empirical Turn
Get PDFProcedural rulemaking and scholarship have taken an empirical turn in the past three decades. This empirical turn reflects a surprising consensus in what is otherwise a highly divided field and an inherently adversarial system. Because procedural rules distribute legal power in society, they invariably raise questions about who should have access to courts, information, and the means to defend one\u27s legal rights. While debate rages about these normative commitments, procedure has developed a surprising epistemic agreement on empiricism, with its promise of rising above these competing interests with data. In procedure, the turn toward empiricism has become a strategy for avoiding contentious political questions, or at least obscuring them.
However, the dodge fails. Procedural reform and debates remain as polarized as ever. To understand why, this Article examines the use of empirical data in debates over the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on discovery and how that reliance on data served to mask rather than reveal the reality of contemporary discovery and litigation in the federal courts. This examination illuminates that procedural reformers\u27 insistence on neutrality, and the empiricism that accompanies it, shields rulemakers from understanding the unequal effects of their amendments and the ways that broader social inequality are reproduced and heightened in the courts.
This Article argues that proceduralists should place the fact of conflicting interests front and center in its debates, both because our system is designed for adversarial engagement, and because the attempt to ignore conflicting interests under the guise of empiricism leaves procedural reform privileging some interests over others without public deliberation
Cumulative Senate Journal
Get PDFhttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/colorado-house-and-senate-journals/1599/thumbnail.jp