Statements (56)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:area |
administrative law
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
A20-0901
|
| gptkbp:community_engagement |
healthcare quality
healthcare accessibility |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Minnesota_Court_of_Appeals
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Minnesota_Supreme_Court
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
March 15, 2021
|
| gptkbp:healthcare |
financial implications
operational changes |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
State v. Essentia Health
|
| gptkbp:involves |
healthcare regulations
|
| gptkbp:is_affected_by |
access to healthcare services
quality of care |
| gptkbp:is_involved_in |
gptkb:Essentia_Health
gptkb:State_of_Minnesota |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:Minnesota
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
regulatory compliance
interpretation of state laws |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:Attorney_General_of_Minnesota
gptkb:municipality statutory interpretation case law review Essentia Health's legal team |
| gptkbp:media_coverage |
legal commentary
significant public interest |
| gptkbp:notable_event |
gptkb:State_v._Allina_Health
gptkb:State_v._Mayo_Clinic |
| gptkbp:outcome |
policy changes
legislative action future litigation ruling in favor of Essentia Health |
| gptkbp:precedent |
affects future healthcare cases
|
| gptkbp:significance |
impact on healthcare providers
|
| gptkbp:sponsor |
gptkb:hospital
gptkb:physicist gptkb:government_agency academics policy makers community leaders community organizations insurance companies advocacy groups business leaders healthcare advocates patient advocacy groups healthcare organizations patients lawyers legal scholars legal experts public health officials media representatives |
| gptkbp:year |
gptkb:2021
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Minnesota_State_Attorney_General
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
5
|