Facts of the Case – In December 2005, Farrow alleged that Dr. Strange, the Medical Director of Radiology for St. Francis, made sexual propositions to her. Farrow stated that she rejected those advances and reported them to the human resources department. She then states that in February 2006, Dr. Strange made a sexually inappropriate comment to her. Farrow then stated that she informed the supervisor of Radiology, Eric Bandon, about the unwanted advances that she received from Dr. Strange and explained how the made her uncomfortable and made it difficult for her to work with him. Farrow claims that Bandon told her that he would look into it but he never ended up getting back to her about the issue. Farrow also contends that Dr. Strange made defamatory statements about the quality of her work. Specifically, she alleged that Dr. Strange falsely accused her of changing doctor’s orders and ignoring his instructions. She also claims that he berated, yelled, intimidated, and harassed her in front of other employees. Moreover, in October 2006, Farrow put documentation into her personnel file concerning Dr. Strange’s and St. Francis’ actions. She …show more content…
She also claimed that she was told by her supervisor that she should not worry about or review her personnel file so much. Farrow decided to go and review her personnel file, and alleges that all of her documented complaints were missing from her file. Subsequently, she saw Dr. Strange in the hallway and he allegedly said to her that he was “still going to get her out”. Farrow then claims that St. Francis responded by labeling her complaints as disruptive and non-productive behavior on her part, and terminated Farrows employment by notice of termination in December 2008. They stated that it was based on failure to meet customer service
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps
Wife appealed from the judgement of Supreme Court, Special Term, Westchester County, N.Y., Morrie Slifkin, J modifying a judgment of divorce by awarding custody of the parties’ children to the husband.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
In her personal essay, Dr. Grant writes that she learned that most cases involving her patients should not be only handled from a doctor’s point of view but also from personal experience that can help her relate to each patient regardless of their background; Dr. Grant was taught this lesson when she came face to face with a unique patient. Throughout her essay, Dr. Grant writes about how she came to contact with a patient she had nicknamed Mr. G. According to Dr. Grant, “Mr. G is the personification of the irate, belligerent patient that you always dread dealing with because he is usually implacable” (181). It is evident that Dr. Grant lets her position as a doctor greatly impact her judgement placed on her patients, this is supported as she nicknamed the current patient Mr.G . To deal with Mr. G, Dr. Grant resorts to using all the skills she
Mrs. Hylton is a 45 year old female who presented to the ED via LEO under IVC by her therapist, Melanie, from ADS. Per documentation Mrs. Hylton denies suicidal ideation and homicidal ideation to nursing staff and MCM before the evaluation. She also contracted for safety with MCM. Dr. Horton requested a mental health assessment on Mrs. Hylton. Before the assessment Ms. Melanie and her supervisor Melissa were contacted. Ms. Melissa reports Mrs. Hylton verbally contracted for safety, however left before ADS could type up terms of verbal agreement. Melissa reports afterwards she was not aware of Mrs. Hylton symptoms of psychosis when speaking with her until being informed by Melanie of findings after conversation with Mrs. Hylton. Melanie upon
The Bay Harbor Pool Room (a pool hall/bar) in Pensacola Florida was broken into on June 3, 1961. The perpetrators broke a window unlocked a door entering the bar robbing the bar of $5 in change and a few bottles of beer and soda. Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested shortly thereafter at a tavern. A nearby resident, Henry Cook, claimed that he saw Gideon leave the bar with a bottle of wine and his pockets filled with coins, make a phone call, get in a cab and leave. Gideon denied the charges (Wikipedia, 2013).
The Texas vs Johnson case didn't drastically change the way people viewed things. Yes, the trial caused a lot of uproar, especially in Texas because of its patriotism, but it wasn't a case in which a law or amendment needed to be changed but rather was a case in which an amendment needed to be understood. Johnson’s act of burning the American flag in front of Dallas City Hall, in order to protest the Reagan administration during the Republican National Convention, was deemed as a sign of “symbolic” speech. Johnson’s act was ruled to be protected by the first amendment because speech was considered more than just the written word. The Supreme Court ruled it as such because of prior cases such as “Stromberg v. California” and “Tinker v. Des
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
On February 11, 1983 Robert Augustus Harper, Jr., filed Amicus Curiae on the case of Joyce Bernice Hawthorne v. State of Florida, 740 So.2d. 770. This was the third appearance of Hawthorne in the First District Court of Appeal of Florida for First degree murder, second degree murder and now manslaughter.
At admission, Mollie’s main complaint was right hip pain. She was not oriented to person, place or time, responding with “I don’t know” to questions asked. While the emergency department nurse completed a physical assessment, Molly’s hospital record was retrieved. Molly was discharged from the hospital two weeks ago, having been admitted for dehydration. Her health history was significant for hypertension and diabetes. Her primary care provider and home health care information were included in Mollie’s hospital record, as was her daughter’s contact information. The emergency department performed an x ray to evaluate Mollie’s right hip pain and there was no evidence of a fracture. Per MD order, labs and samples were collected and processed: CBC-diff, CRP, hyperal, blood culture, prealbumin level and urinalysis. Molly was evaluated for sexual assault and the appropriate samples were gathered. The forensic nurse gently scraped material from underneath Mollie’s fingernails. Bruises were measured and age of each bruise was estimated by
Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do justice” (Courtroom 302, 59). As a judge, Locallo seems to express three different personalities, which tend to change depending on the current case at hand. His personalities are being compassionate judge, being an understanding judge, or being a hard-nose tough judge. Each of these personalities are not only determined by the case, but also by whether Locallo will profit on the long run; whether or not he will get reelected as a circuit judge at the end of his term.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
I, Israel Tefera a jury number one in the case state of Texas v. James Broadnax, herby give the final verdict on the aforementioned case before the jury. After deliberating on the case, we the jury have given to this court our opinion on the case. If I may, before reading the verdict go through my thought process, I would appreciate it your honor.