Utah County v Intermountain Health Care Case Analysis

Each discussion paper should be based on an issue,
case, statute, or dispute related to one of the topics in the syllabus (session 9 has two topics;
the paper may focus on an issue related to either one). It should be based in part on the
reading. It should show that you have followed up on the reading by reviewing some of the
sources cited in the text relevant to your analysis. The paper should not be a summary of the
chapter, but rather an analysis of one or two of the issues in the chapter. The best papers will
include outside research. Please take full advantage of the electronic resources available to you
through library.gmu.edu. Do not simply use Google or Bing or similar research tools; these are
unlikely to find good academic material. Good choices for subjects for the discussion papers
include the legal decisions appended to most of the chapters, a legal case described in the
chapter, or another interesting issue raised in the chapter. Each paper should be at least 500
words long (not including footnotes) and no more than 1500 words (not including footnotes).

***Creative, well-researched, well-analyzed (that is, multiple subtopics with sound reasons
presented) and persuasive. For example, the “A” product will need to include at least two
Page 9 of 11
Spring 2019 HAP-312.002 Prof. Zane
sources other than the Showalter textbook; you may find such sources by following Showalter’s
footnotes or by doing additional research. I expect to read something that shows thought and
analysis of the issue or issues you have chosen to write about. The paper should be well
structured, with an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. An analysis of why you think a case
presented in the text was correctly or incorrectly decided is an appropriate subject. The full
text of the case itself — more than what was excerpted or presented in the text — counts as
one source.