Battery: Feed Without Consent

This case is extremely relevant to what is known as the four D’s of negligence; duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages. Duty is when a doctor and a patient have formed a relationship and said doctor has taken on the responsibility of taking care of the patient. Dereliction or failure to perform a duty, there must be some kind of proof that the doctor somehow neglected the doctor neglected the patient. Direct cause, there must be some kind of proof that what happened to the patient was a direct cause of how the doctor conducted himself or his failure to act which resulted in injury. Damages a patient must prove that harm was incurred by the direct result of the physicians actions.

This would be a civil case against Jeanette 's physician. Civil cases generally deal with wrongful acts and are able to sue a business or a person for monetary value (Fremgen, pg. 36). In comparison to criminal case, where the government would have to prove intentional harm against others. The receptionist and the doctor 's action could be argued for Negligent tort. According to Fremgen, "Tort is a breach of duty that causes injury" (Fremgen, pg. 133). A healthcare professionals "action and inactions can be considered negligence" (Fremgen, pg. 133). In this case, the receptionist ' inaction to inform the doctor right away did cause harm to Jeannette. Jeanette 's

Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to

As a nurse it has happened to be an essential need to be conscious of the legal aspects associated with caring and serving people in the health industry today. Unfortunately, only fewer people want to get into the health care field fearing the legal aspects and the predictable law suits. The Tort Law is one of the legal aspects of the law that most nurses is more familiar with. This is the law that involved misconduct and negligence cases, which many nurses take the time to study in depth. This is one of the most universal and well-known laws, something that nurses and doctors must be familiar with, to maintain their care resourcefully.

Negligence is the failure to do something. Many medical cases are filed as medical malpractice suits, “medical malpractice is professional misconduct. Malpractice differs from negligence because it is performed by a license medical professional” (Flight 2). The case of Horton V. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center can be used as a primary example where negligence, “failure to take reasonable precautions to protect others from the risk of harm” (Flight 33), is visible.

A civil suit is commonly derived from a private party or individual, who alleges damages from duty of care. Once a civil case begins, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove, with evidence, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Conversely, the defendant must prove their affirmative defense against documented allegations. The Oliver versus Brock case proves the importance of supporting evidence as opposed to hearsay statements, to prove the truth of the matter. In the Oliver versus Brock case, Cathy (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Bryan Whitfield Memorial Hospital of Demopolis and the treating physicians Dr. F.S. Whitfield, Dr. Paul Ketcham and Dr. E.C. Brock (Defendant) for negligence of care. Analyzing the facts in

1. Intentional torts are actions with the purpose or intention to injure another person or that person’s property. The person inflicting the harm is called a tortfeasor. Intentional torts require intent. The person who committed the tort must have intended to cause harm. The harm, however, does not require malice or ill will, just the

If this scenario happened in an outpatient clinic or urgent care center and there were physicians who were more dedicated to patient safety a report to child protective services may have been made regarding the child’s injuries. This child deserves to have her rights observed and

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: 1. the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; 2. the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and 3. the conduct must be the cause 4. of severe emotional distress. This is exactly what happened din this case. Steve Steel not only knocked the phone out of Prudence’s hand but also broke down the door and threatened Prudence with force and made her scared for her life. I do believe that negligence is a part of this case. A person who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. Steve Steel did not show a proper care of duty with Prudence. I think that Steve Steel should also be responsible for all of the physical and mental damages since he did not show reasonable care. I think the tort liability in this case would be assault and battery. An assault involves three things that we see in this case. An assault occurs when an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or

An important concept that I learned from the HCA 6280 is tort of negligence which was totally a new subject to me. According to Harris (2008), plaintiff must prove four elements of tort which are “duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages” (p. 138) The plaintiff will be compensated only if he can prove that all the four elements of the tort are true to his case. I learned that duty means that physicians are required to provide patients with standard care and based on that responsibility they are required to provide standard care.Organizations have the legal responsibility to only employ staff who prove to have clinical competency. Otherwise, in case of an adverse event the organization or physician will be liable for breach of duty. Causation

Health care fraud is defined as a type of white-collar crime that involves filing of dishonest health care claims in order to turn a profit. Healt Care Fraud,(http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/healthcare_fraud) Fraudulent health care schemes come in many forms. False claims in billing, meaning they did a normal check up but billed your insurance company for procedures not done or labs never drawn. Lieing about performing a procedure but didn't do it but billed for it just to get paid. Another one is kickbacks and self referrals to gain financial benefits. Torts is defined as a civil wrong committed against a person or property, excluding breach of contract. An act, committed without just cause, may have caused physical injury, resulted in damage

Negligence happens when a “person’s actions fall below a certain level of care. Negligence can involve doing something carelessly or failing to do something that should have been done.” (Fremgen, 2009, p. 35). In order to prove negligence the plaintiff must present the following elements: 1) duty to care, 2) breach of duty to care, 3) injury and 4) causation (Pozgar, 2012, p. 33). Duty to care is the first element which deals with the care that the defendant (physician) owes the plaintiff (the patient).

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

Most hospitals, staff nurse and physicians biggest fear, is being sued for malpractice. As health care providers, we strive to do right by the patient, always practicing safety first. Medical malpractice, periodically referred to as medical negligence, it happens when a health care provider violates the governing standard of care when providing treatment to a patient, the source the patient to suffer an injury. The United States malpractice system has two objectives: to compensate patients who are injured through negligence by a healthcare provider and to discourage health care providers from practicing negligently Malpractice is a

Abstract—Battery draining attacks exploit the resource limitation of modern mobile devices and have long been proved effective. However, most of the existing attack methods require sensitive information of the target in advance, which limits the effectiveness of this attack. This paper describes the design and implementation of a battery draining attack combined with Man-In-The-Middle attacks that requires as little information of the target as possible. The attack aims to be performed on any target connecting to a random public AP, to work on a wide range of devices automatically, and to drain the batteries covertly without notifications. Several implementations are tested, their battery draining speed measured and the best attack is able to speed up the battery usage 14.3 times. Pros and cons of this attack are discussed.