Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Workplace ethics violations
Workplace ethics violations
Workplace ethics violations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Workplace ethics violations
Hillary Graham Legal Aspects 340 Prof. Gerrie Schipske Mon-Wed. 12:30 pm Case Brief: Montague v. AMN Healthcare, Inc. The case of Sara Montague et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AMN Healthcare, INC., Defendant and Respondent, was taken up and decided in the appellate court. The case was first granted a standard review of a summary judgment, which failed, the plaintiff then appealed this motion. After the appeal it then went to court to be heard in a normal trial. Just to be a bit more precise, it was heard and decided as case No. D063385. in the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One, on the 21st of February in 2014. In this court case, representing Sara Montague, the plaintiff and appellant, was the law office of …show more content…
There is a woman by the name of Theresa Drummond who is a licensed medical assistant; she went through the company of Nursefinders to help assist her in placing her into a job and they did exactly that. They found her a medical assisting job at a Kaiser Medical Facility and at the Kaiser Facility where she got employed to is where she met the plaintiff in this case whose name is Sara Montague, she is also employed as a medical assistant. During a few different occurrences at the Kaiser Medical Facility both Theresa Drummond and the plaintiff Sara Montague had their differences and got into arguments while on the job. One of the arguments was about how the rooms were being stocked improperly and the argument following that was regarding some lab slips that had been lost, during this particular incident Theresa Drummond raised her voice at the plaintiff Sara Montague (Montague v. AMN Healthcare, Inc., …show more content…
After this occurred to the plaintiff by drinking her water, eventually Theresa Drummond came clean and admitted to putting carbolic acid in to Montague’s water bottle that was left at work. The carbolic acid was in fact found in the Kaiser Medical Facilities examination room where both the medical assistants work at (Montague v. AMN Healthcare, Inc.,
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
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
Nurse finders later assigned Drummond to work at a Kaiser facility as a medical assistant. The Plaintiff Sara Montegue was a medical assistant at Kaiser. Drummond and Montague had a disagreement, Montague didn’t think it was much of a big argument to report it. Both Drummond and Montague had a discussion about misplaced lab slips where Drummond raised her voice. A few weeks after the discussion, Montague left her water bottle at work. Montague later drank from her water bottle and her tongue and throat started to burn and she vomited. Drummond admitted that she had poured carbolic acid found in a Kaiser examination room into Montague’s water
Explain the issue or dilemma using information from the readings in the book and other sources.
...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.
Plaintiff Debra Denise Gregg filed a sexual harassment suit for violations of Title VII, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act against Hay-Adams Hotel. She sought $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 for damages resulting from emotional distress and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff Anthony Gregg brought the claim for damages resulting from loss of companionship and consortium in the amount of $1,000,000. The judges dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s accounts lacked consortium and that the facts did not support her claims for emotional distress and punitive damage.
Opinion by Carnes, Circuit Judge. We conclude that the district court’s judgment was an appealable “final decision”. We also hold that the arbitration agreement in this case defeats the remedial purposes of the TILA and is unenforceable.
Court’s Decision: This case was decided without going to trial by three judges and they decided in favor
The process of the judging on this criteria goes like this: First, a business or organization that loses an appeal in the Us court system, they are allowed to file a petition, called a “cert petition” (Savage 981). These petitions explain in thirty pages or less the process, views, and decision of the case. These are then given to the Law Clerks, who create a “cert memo”. This is created when the Clerk rea...
The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of California, where the trial court decision was held. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case because of conflict within lower courts, seen in U.S v. Wurie, 13-212 and Riley v. California, 13-132.
On the 30th of June of 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that “the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows for-profit companies to deny contraception coverage to employees based on a religious objection”. Essentially, this ruling only applies to the contraceptive mandate in question, rather than to all possible objections of the Affordable Care Act. So, in layman’s terms the Supreme Court’s ruling is that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is to be read as applying to corporations [since they are composed of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends]. Before this case was taken to the Supreme Court, the Greens [representing Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.] decided to sue Kathleen Sebelius [the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services]. This case presented
This case involves a 67 years old man who had total right knee replacement at the hospital. His family are the plaintiffs on the case as he passed away after surgery. The defendant on the case is a now former surgical nurse that worked at the medical-surgical nursing care unit. She was reassigned to this position from the post-acute critical care unit.
On 12-20-2015, at approximately 4:00 p.m., the claimant stated she was undergoing intense training with Mr. Liu and thought that Mr. Liu, was singling her out compared to co-worker, Ms. Celeste Gutierrez, singling her out. The claimant felt “undue pressure” from Mr. Liu, who continuously pointed out every mistake she made throughout her training. She said that Mr. Liu would “talk down to her.”
A new employee, Rosie Alexander, was given a task from her supervisor, Conor Hall. The task was answering a few questions about a recent acquisition of new stock for a long-term client. Rosie, unable to answer all of the questions and provide a comprehensive response, sent her draft back to Conor requesting additional information. She expressly stated in her response that the information that she provided should not be sent to the client due to the informal nature of the response. A few days later when the client followed up with her request Conor, who had not yet done anything with Rosie’s response, forwarded the incomplete response to the client. When client then complained that the response lacked detail, instead of taking any form accountability or responsibility, Conor placed the blame on Rosie. In doing so he put her in a difficult position and made her look unreliable. The next day Rosie decided to approach her supervisor and tell him that he should tell the client the truth to which Conor agreed.
The Donoghue V. Stevenson Case 1932 was about the violation of a consumer’s right to safe consumption of a product. Mrs. Donoghue the plaintiff was bought for a drink (Ginger Beer) by a friend in a cafe store. In the process of consuming the drink, a decomposing snail was discovered after it floated from the opaque bottle. The plaintiff had already consumed the drink and was in shock to discover the snail. Mrs. Donoghue was later diagnosed with shock and gastroenteritis. She later sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, seeking fiscal compensation for the damages (Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932]).