Disagreements about the level of charity care that an entity provides can effect more than just taxes. Many states permit charitable entities to avoid responsibility for harm that they cause due to their carelessness. For example the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that the University of Virginia Medical Center was not entitled to charitable immunity in part because of its aggressive collection efforts against those who received medical care but could not pay. On the other hand the Supreme Court ruled, in denying an appeal in a negligence case, that Didlake Inc. was entitled to the protection of charitable immunity. When an entity is entitled to the protection of charitable immunity this means that anyone who is hurt by that entity must bear their own losses for the "good of society".
Our question is: In 2010, is this still a good idea?