Jonathan Tatro
Case Study: Adams v. St. Francis Regional Medical Center
Conclusion- I agree with the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the protective orders granted by the distract court. The court’s decision enforces the right of Nichelle Adams’ family to seek damages for their daughters wrongful death trumps the privilege allotted to peer review documents and I agree. Despite how crucial privacy is in the healthcare industry it is necessary to sacrifice a certain amount of privilege to insure a certain degree of justice in cases like this. I think an in camera investigation is necessary for cases like this rather than a protective order. Peer review and incident reporting is critical to a healthcare organization and to supervisory agencies. It is typically affective because of the degree of confidentially it affords originations
…show more content…
The court’s decision enforces the right of Nichelle Adams’ family to seek damages for their daughters wrongful death trumps the privilege allotted to peer review documents and I agree. Despite how crucial privacy is in the healthcare industry it is necessary to sacrifice a certain amount of privilege to insure a certain degree of justice in cases like this. I think an in camera investigation is necessary for cases like this rather than a protective order. Peer review and incident reporting is critical to a healthcare organization and to supervisory agencies. It is typically affective because of the degree of confidentially it affords originations and their employees, but it is necessary to be able to challenge this privilege. This decision sets a precedent for future challenges to peer review privilege. It was used in 2011 in Reyes v. to force the defendants to produce documents. Which were subsequently subject to an in camera investigation. As was the case with Adams v. St. Francis Regional Medical
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 applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
Facts: A minor and his mother filed suit for damages against Tri-County Orthopedic physicians for false diagnose and filling a child abuse reports. The Michigan Court of Appeals rule that child abuse reporting statue provides immunity to persons who file the child abuse was report in good faith even if the reports were a negligent diagnosis which was cause of the child bone fractures. The court also appealed that damage of shame and humiliation was not recoverable to Michigan statute. Immunity from liability did not extend for damages of malpractice which has been the result from the failure to diagnose the child disease.
In the case of Riser v. American Medical Int’l, Inc., Riser, a 69-year-old mother of four children, was suffering from circulation complications in her lower arms and hands. She had a history of several conditions such as diabetes mellitus, end-stage renal failure, and arteriosclerosis. The physician at Hospital A, Dr. Sottiurai, requested bilateral arteriograms to find the etiology of Riser’s circulation problems. However, Hospital A could not fulfill Dr. Sottiurai’s request, so Riser was transferred to Hospital B under the care of Dr. Lang, who was a radiologist. At this instance, Dr. Lang mistakenly performed a femoral arteriogram instead of the bilateral arteriogram that Dr. Sottiurai had originally ordered, and after the procedure when Riser was on her way to be
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
...that was the first thing that caught my interest, later when reading the case and discovering that two lower cases had both ruled against the plaintiff, that is when I decided to go further in the case. I wanted to know why it was that the lower courts had ruled against her anf not for her. The decision the court made was fair, I agree with the court. It was the fairest ruling the court could have made towards Suders considering that in reality she had lost the lower court ruling because of the fact she didn't really have sufficient evidence that indeed her supervisors had been harassing her. Therefore, I think the outcome of this particular case was fair and I would have to agree with the decision the United States Supreme Court made towards Suders.
While working at the OB-GYN department in the hospital, Dr. Vandall, as a Vice Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, learned that another employee of the hospital, Dr. Margaret Nordell was engaged in a level of treatment that was unethical and violated accepted standards of care. It was his duty to the hospital and to the patients, to monitor the competence of his staff members. Although he tried to take the proper steps to deal with it within the hospital, he ended up reporting this to the North Dakota Board of Medical Examiners. It was concluded by the Board that the treatment of Dr. Nordell was gross negligence and they suspended her license to practice medicine.
Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction are the poor-quality patient care that Tomcik received and Tomcik’s health being at risk. Once engaged in a doctor-patient relationship, physicians are obligated to provide the best possible care for the patient by utilizing their skills and knowledge as expected from a competent physician under the same or similar conditions (“What Is a Doctor’s Duty of Care?” n.d.). However, in Tomcik’s situation, Dr. Evans did not deliver high-quality care, for he administered a perfunctory breast examination and thus did not follow standard protocols. There is evidence of indifference conveyed by Dr. Evans, and the lack of proper care towards Tomcik is an issue that can be scrutinized and judged appropriately. Additionally, Tomcik’s health was at risk due to the failure of a proper physical evaluation and the incredibly long delay in diagnosis and treatment. The negligence from Dr. Evans, along with the lack of medical attention sought out by Tomcik after she had first discovered the lump in her breast, may contribute to Tomcik’s life being in danger as well as the emotional anguish she may have felt during that time period. Overall, the incident of Tomcik’s expectations from the original physician and other employees at the institution not being met is an ethical issue that should be dealt with
...who violated Randy’s rights. With such little evidence from the Plaintiff, and the fact that Caruso is not a medical professional, she was not involved in the making of policies and procedures relating to medical matters. Therefore, Caruso did not act with deliberate indifference and was entitled summary judgment, because Plaintiff Parsons failed to provide sufficient evidence on Caruso.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
...arteries a secret. This I find to be substantially suspect. While I do not argue that the student athletes have a lower expectation of privacy due to their situation in the locker rooms and activities undertaken together as a team, I do not believe that this expectation is nearly low enough to allow an invasion of ones own body for the purposes of a search. Clearly there is no way for anyone to have any indication of what chemicals are contained inside one's own blood by a casual glance or even a thorough study of the outside of one's body. The expectation of privacy regarding one's blood would be equivalent to the contents of a safe hidden and locked inside one's house. While this expectation of privacy is something to be respected it can still be violated by an individual suspicious of guilt accompanied by a probable cause and a search warrant. In that case the blood test or the opening of the safe would be justified in my opinion. But due to the nature of the randomness of this search it is obvious to me that it is unconstitutional and this court decision should be reversed.
With the guidance of their physician, Baby Does’ parents chose to withhold medical care and surgery due to the conclusion still leaving the child with severe retardation. “Officials at the hospital had the Indiana Juvenile Courts appoint a guardian to determine whether or not to perform the surgery. The court finally ruled in favor of the parents and upheld their right to informed medical decision” (Resnik, 2011). Because of the decision made to withhold surgery and medical care, Baby Doe died five days later of dehydration and pneumonia.
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
Medical malpractice cases are difficult for the families who have lost their loved one or have suffered from severe injuries. No one truly wins in complicated court hearings that consist of a team of litigation attorneys for both the defendant and plaintiff(s). During the trial, evidence supporting malpractice allegations have to be presented so that the court can make a decision if the physician was negligent resulting in malpractice, or if the injury was unavoidable due to the circumstances. In these types of tort cases, the physician is usually a defendant on trial trying to prove that he or she is innocent of the medical error, delay of treatment or procedure that caused the injury. The perfect example of being at fault for medical malpractice as a result of delaying a procedure is the case of Waverly family versus John Hopkins Health System Corporation. The victims were not compensated enough for the loss of their child’s normal life. Pozgar (2012) explained….
The Lewis Blackman Case: Ethics, Law, and Implications for the Future Medical errors in decision making that result in harm or death are tragic and costly to the families affected. There are also negative impacts to the medical providers and the associated institutions (Wu, 2000). Patient safety is a cornerstone of higher-quality health care and nurses serve as a communication link in all settings which is critical in surveillance and coordination to reduce adverse outcomes (Mitchell, 2008). The Lewis Blackman Case 1 of 1 point accrued