...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.
Negligence and malpractice are terms that many use interchangeably, but the meanings are very different. Healthcare is one practice that has been in existence for centuries whether informally or formally. Since the first birth of any kind, the nurturing and caring of each other man or beast utilized the methods available to restore or maintain life. Since the 19th century, instructional school for nursing was established, streamlining the institution of health care today. In the previous centuries, caring for the sick was not the industry we know today. One did not worry about negligence and malpractice lawsuits, but today one has to be knowledgeable and aware of the implications of both negligence and malpractice in the 20th century practice of healthcare. This paper will explore the difference between negligence, and malpractice, and what one can do as humanly possible, to avoid being the subject of either. It will explore the importance of accurate and adequate documentation and how important it is for nurses to maintain Professional
Nursefinders argues that the causes of action based on respondent superior liability failed because Drummond was a special employee of Kaiser or acted outside the course and scope of her employment. they also asserted that no triable issues listed on Montague’s negligence claim and the lack of cable cause of action precluded a derivative loss of consortium claim.
For example, a case that involves a vascular surgeon, Dr. V, who owns his own practice, was sued for malpractice because the patient had signed the consent form allowing only an angiography, which is a visualization of the patient’s blood vessels pertaining to veins, arteries, and etc., but the surgeon performed an extra procedure, that was approved of by the family’s physician during the screening, due to an irregular lesion that could potentially burst and be detrimental to the patient’s health if it wasn’t attended to immediately. The result of the procedure was successful, but as complications began to occur on the patient’s foot, it would later need to be amputated and resulted in a lawsuit from the family against Dr. V. However, the consent form that the patient had initially signed contained a catchall clause, which states, “I also consent to and authorize the performance of such additional procedures as [my physician] deems necessary and appropriate”(Starr, David), and serves as the surgeon’s safeguard from any legal suits in the case of emergency procedures that were deemed necessary during the period of the initial procedure. Nonetheless, the case ended in favor of the patient’s family, based on the idea that the jury believed Dr. V did not need to perform the procedure at the time. This case is one of many examples of where the good intentions of a health-care professional are being punished because of legal issues and unknown health complications. The consent form was the main issue in this case, as the conditions were not clear to both sides of the party of what was appropriate and what was
In the plaintiff’s suit, he alleged the surgery did not go well because the hospital had hired a surgeon, who was not competent or qualified enough to perform the surgery therefore; the hospital was just as negligent as the doctor was. Before the trial date, Dr. Salinsky and his insurance company, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, settled with plantiff out of court on the basis they will be released from the suit upon payment of $140,000 (Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital). Although, Salinsky settled with plaintiff prior to trial, there was still “question of whether he was negligent in the manner in which he performed the operation on July 11, 1975, remained an issue at trial, as it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that Salinsky was negligent in this respect to establish a
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.
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.
The question before the Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital is if an employer should be held responsible if an employee who is biased and does not make decisions has an influence on a decision that an unbiased administrator or manager would not usually make. In this case, Mulally and Korenchuk fabricated an allegation that caused Buck to fire Staub. The Court decided that an employer can be held responsible when a biased employee intends to cause an unfavorable employment action by either taking an action or influencing an unbiased administrator. This is because of discriminatory animus which is intent, motive, or state of mind that discriminates against someone else. At the end of the decision, the question that is left to the lower court to
In addition, Guardiola claims that the improperly billed claims were caused by “inadequate clinical documentation to support inpatient claims, internal processes designed to improperly assign inpatient admission status, antiquated computer systems that generated false claims, and a lack of review to ensure appropriate inpatient status assignments” (Guardiola v. Renown Health, 2014). It is noted that the plaintiff Guardiola discovered the alleged insufficiencies and claimed she brought it to the attention of management, but Renown takes no action to correct the problem and did nothing to prevent it from happening. The plaintiff claims that management at Renown directed, encouraged and facilitated the deceitful action to be continued against
In the case of Griffin v. The Methodist Hospital, medical malpractice was brought before a court on grounds of negligence whereby treatment caused Achilles tendon contracture. The affidavits submitted failed to address care or treatment necessary to prevent the condition in addition to failure to provide when or how the patient’s condition was assessed. The hospital and nurses were liable to charges of
In all of these situations listed here, the doctor was negligent, and this forms the cornerstone of any malpractice lawsuit.
The hospital under vicarious liability is based on Respondeat Superior (let the master answer) for the negligence actions of its contractors/employees. This is the responsibility of physicians for negligent actions of hospital employees ranging from nurses to x-ray techs. Through Corporate Liability the hospital itself is liable for the negligent actions of its workers.
The Medical Malpractice Myth is a book by Tom Baker that discusses the research findings relating to medical malpractice. Baker’s purpose for writing this piece is to reveal the discrepancies between people’s perceptions of the myth and its realities. He questions whether or not malpractice lawsuits or medical malpractice itself is the problem. Baker argues that disputes presented in the medical malpractice myth are not the issues that people should be concerned about.
Breach of Duty – This is when it starts to get tricky. It wasn’t hard for us to prove of the injury and the duty of the doctors. It is hard to prove that Dr. Towler was the one who broke his responsibility to the patient. Especially with the government on his said. He claims that he looked at the patients record and everything was good to go. So the reason that this patient is dead, wasn’t because of him. Later we find out that Dr. Towler asked Nurse Kaitlin to change the record of the last time the patient ate from a “1” to a “9” or else he would make sure she got fired.