Case Analysis : Hawkins V. Mcgee

The Perin v. Hayne case involves malpractice in which the plaintiff, Perin sought damages on four theories specific negligence, res ipsa loquitur, breach of express warranty and battery. The surgery was successful at eliminating pain, however as a result the plaintiff suffered vocal cord paralysis. I believe that due care was shown because Dr. Hayne, the defendant, performed the surgery exactly the same way any other physician would under the same condition. Also, informed consent was exercised and there was no way to predict or prevent such occurrence. Dr. Hayne followed the standard of care and did not sway from it. There is no negligence because there was no evidence that the nerve was severed during surgery. The court found that

In the second case Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital, Corporate Negligence was clearly performed. Invispress.com states that “the existence of the records shows that Misericordia had been negligent in hiring Salinsky”. The facility should have done a more thorough investigation and followed the state’s bylaws and statutes pertaining to the proper credential verification on Dr. Salinsky upon applying to Misericordia Community Hospital before giving him the privilege to practice. If only they would have done that, they would have realized that Dr. Salinsky had falsified numerous statements on his application. I personally think that both the hospital as well as Dr. Salinsky are both at fault for the permanent damage they caused the patient

Within the United States Constitution as it Pertained to the Dred Scott Case of 1856

The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the three Amendment made after the Civil War. It granted African-Americans the right to citizenship in the United States of America. This Amendment is made up of five parts. Starting with the first part, no one can be robbed of their property, life, or liberty and legally everyone has equal protection. This part of the amendment applies to citizens unless a law or trial is present to overturn those rights. The second part is Representatives in Congress are determined based on the number of people living in the states. The third part focuses on preventing anyone working in the government to be allowed to participate in insurrection or a rebellion against the United States. In part four of

Along with protests, many people went to trials discussing what was legal, what was an injustice, and many other complaints regarding the issue of slavery. One particular case was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. Dred Scott was a slave who lived in many places with his owner. Shortly before his owner, Peter Blow’s death, Scott and his owner, moved back to slave territory (OI). Blow sold Scott to Dr. John Emerson just before he died. After working with Emerson, they moved to Illinois, a free state, where they stayed for many years (OI). They then moved farther up North the Mississippi River, where Scott even got married (OI). The Scotts moved back and forth betwixt different states, both free and slaves; Scott’s wife had her child in Fort Snelling

The last element is damages. “Damages are proven when it is determined the injury was a result of the practitioner's actions. The intent of awarding damages is to make the plaintiff whole, meaning as if the negligence never occurred” (Walker, 2011, para. 15). Damages are usually paid in the form of money, but I do not think any amount of money will ever make this patient feel whole or that the negligence never occurred.

The instance of Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, honest to goodness case in which the U.S. Superior Court on March 6, 1857, decided that a slave who had stayed in a free state and area was not thusly fit the bill for his adaptability; that African Americans were not and could never be subjects of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise, which had declared free all areas west of Missouri and north of degree, was unlawful. The decision added fuel to the sectional dispute and drove the country closer to regular war.

Bound v. Smith was a North Carolina case that was filed by three (3) inmates against state administrators under section 1983,1. The facts of the case alleged that the inmates has been deprived of access to the courts in violation of their fourteen (14th) amendment rights by the state’s failure to provide legal research facilities (Shaw, 1978).

In the case of Shahine vs. Louisiana State University Medical Center, the plaintiff Ms. Shahine experienced right ulnar nerve damage following a right total hip arthroplasty. She filed suit against the University Medical Center and her anesthesiologist, Dr. W for medical malpractice and requested the court to infer negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Dr. W was fully responsible for Ms. Shahine’s care while she was under anesthesia and Ms. Shahine obviously could not assess the true cause of injury while she was anesthetized. However, Dr. W provided evidence of non-negligence by thoroughly charting in Ms. Shahine’s medical record proper positioning and padding. Another anesthesiologist provided the court with uncontroverted

The discovery of unethical billing alongside unethical accounting practices provoked a chain reaction towards a hospital accountant by the name of Rehberg. An accountant trying to serve justice was entangled in a web of lies. Rehberg vs. Paulk is a very interesting Supreme Court case. Rehberg vs. Paulk embodied much of the injustice that is not presented to the public when sworn officials break the very laws that are supposed to be protected. The Rehberg vs. Paulk case provides controversy among different jurisdictions within the judicial system and gives examples of the different elements of crime within the case.

Darling sued the Charleston Community Memorial Hospital for negligence of treatment. The courts did find that negligence did happen during the treatment of Darling at the hospital, and he was awarded compensation for his damages.

The Plaintiffs, family of the decedent plaintiff, Barbara J. O’Neil, filed a wrongful death complaint due to mesothelioma against the defendant manufacturers, Crane Co. et al., in concerns of valves and pumps manufactured for use on Navy warships. This particular claim raised strict liability claims and negligence claims in regards to asbestos exposure experienced by the decedent

In the case of Peter v. North Carolina, we the jury find Michael Peterson not guilty of first degree murder of his wife Katherine Peterson. The information that was presented in this case does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael was motivated by an act of malice when he had decided to take away the life of a loved one. Because of this occurence, Michael is currently facing another trial in order to see if he is guilty for a crime he did not commit. As a jury, we cannot condone the act of putting an innocent bystander in a position to be imprisoned if he is not condemned of the charges that is handed down from court. Convicting Michael as a murderer in this case would take away the freedom that he deserves and distort the peaceful atmosphere that surrounds his family.

The article “A Plea to North Carolina: Bringing fairness to the Assessment of Civil Battery Liability for Defendants with Cognitive Disabilities” discusses how individuals with cognitive disabilities should be held liable for their actions. When mentally insane people intentionally attack people, they should be charged for their misdemeanors. Even when successfully pleading insane in a courtroom, they may not have their charges dropped. Chriscoe uses the example regarding the case of Mcguire Vs Almy, where a registered nurse sued one of her patients that attacked her. Even though he was insane, he still had the intent of trying to harm her. Due to this fact, the court ruled that he was liable for his actions. In many cases, courts have to prove

Now comes the Defendant, Joseph Bettina, files this Motion For temporary Support and would shows: