Case Study: Medical Culpability

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.

“Medical malpractice occurs when a hospital, doctor or other health care professional, through a negligent act or omission, causes an injury to a patient. The negligence might be the result of errors in diagnosis, treatment, aftercare or health management.” (Admin) One of the most common type of claims that pharmacies face are negligence claims. Negligence is one of the categories that falls under the area of law called Torts. In the Hundley v Rite Aid case, a tort was filed for injuries that were sustained by Gabrielle Hundley after she took medication from an incorrectly filed prescription. The case involved a jury trial verdict involving Gabrielle Hundley, a minor child, against Howard Jones, the pharmacist, and the Rite

In order to claim that a doctor or hospital was negligent in a medical malpractice case, there must be specific requirements present. First off a doctor-patient relationship must have existed (Boeschen, 2014). An individual making the claim must show that there was a physician-patient relationship with the doctor being sued. This means the doctor was hired and agreed to be hired for the medical care provided. If a doctor began seeing you and treating you, it is easy to prove a physician-patient relationship existed. Second the plaintiff must show the doctor was negligent. Regardless of if the patient is unhappy with their treatment or results, does not determine the doctor is liable for medical malpractice. The doctor must have been negligent -- not reasonably skillful and careful -- in a diagnosis or treatment (Boeschen, 2014). To sue for malpractice, you must be able to show that the doctor caused you harm in a way that a competent doctor, under the same circumstances would not have (Boeschen, 2014). In many cases, the doctor's care is not required to be the best possible, but simply "reasonably skillful and careful” (Boeschen, 2014). Whether or not the doctor was reasonably skillful and careful is often up to the medical malpractice claim.

‘Is a no fault regime better than a negligence rule as a way of dealing with the causes and consequences of medical error?’

A second issue is malpractice. Malpractice issues are always present in an unstable environment where patients will seek to remedy an incident if they feel they have been harmed (Hamric, 2009). It is important to always act in a reasonable way as a health care clinician but unfortunately there are always those who are negligent in their actions as practitioners.

Currently, there is a lawsuit pending in Vigo Superior Court which is alleging that negligence by a property owner contributed to the death of three people. These deaths were a result of a fire which engulfed a rental property. The lawsuit claims that both the property owner and the property agent had failed to ensure that there were functional smoke detectors installed within the home. This home was occupied by Kayla Lewis, her daughter Gabrielle, and her stepbrother Jeremiah. Gabrielle age 2, was pronounced dead at the scene amongst the early morning fire at the home. Jeremiah age 5, was transported from the scene but later died at the hospital. Gabrielle's sister Chloe age 3, and her mother Kayla were both hospitalized due to injuries sustained in the fire. Kayla made it to the hospital, but later died.

The first issue involves the violation of sterile procedurel by a nurse in the operating room. This violation of protocol may have placed the patient at risk for an operative infection. A claim of negligence requires four elements to be satisfied (Pozgar, 2016, p. 66). The fist is duty to care. The surgical procedure having been performed at this institution fulfills this requirement. The second is a breach of duty (Pozgar, 2016, p. 71). The operative nurse violated the hospital and operating room protocol for the use of operative instruments and violated the polices for sterile technique. This serves as the breach. The third component is injury (Pozgar, 2016, p. 72). The presence of infection, the need for prolonged antibiotic treatment and the possible need for a reoperation would meet the injury requirement. At last evaluation by Dr. Smith, the patient had signs and symptoms consistent with infection at the surgical site. The final criteria is causation (Pozgar, 2016, p. 73). Unless another cause of

Cameron was the owner of a gun shop in Texas. In 2004, a fire happened in his gun shop, but no one was killed. His defense said that aerosol cans containing flammable gun cleaner were the cause of the separate fires when the heat from an accidental fire caused them to burst. They flew through the room causing different fires to start in different areas. The expert witness argued that the cans could not cause the fires in separate areas of the room. Severs was sentenced to seventeen years in prison. After a video of aerosol cans erupting in flames was released, prosecutors admitted that it was possible that the fire was accidental.

Even though I did not see or hear the nurse bring up an issue about the patient’s safety before, during or after the procedure, I am sure she was actively monitoring the patient and the surrounding situation for harm. As a future nurse, I have been made aware of the need to identify and correct unsafe practices or procedures in order to improve the patient’s experience and prevent unnecessary harm.

This case involving Mr. Jones at age 25, was severely burned in a propane gas explosion in which he was rushed to the Burn Treatment Unit of Parkland Hospital in Dallas. When examined in the hospital he was found to have serve burns of 65 percent of his body; his face and hands had have third degree burns. In which both eyes were severely damaged. So he had to take full burn therapy that was commenced during his stay. This case raises the question whether it is right to continue the procedure with the patient receiving pain. The reason this case is important because we either have to agree or disagree with the choices made by the physician. That it is important that the physicians should be taking care of their patients and making sure they cause no harm to the patients. I will be arguing that I disagree with the physician in this case he acted unjustifiable with his patient and that he should of have performed the following action in pleasing the patient. The patient Mr. Jones at age 25 years old, had been severely burned, discharged totally blind, he barely had minimal use of his hands. He had badly scarred and had to depend on others to assist him with his personal functions.

The core purpose of the national patient safety goals is to indeed promote and improve patient safety. The Joint Commission (2015) lists several of them in its 2015 National Patient Safety Goals. One of the goals the author wants to elaborate more upon is: prevent mistakes in surgery. This paper will include an overview about the aforementioned national patient safety goal. It includes three methods to be followed to be able to achieve the said safety goal. The paper also highlights the importance of the issue to the general public, to the health care institutions, and to the health care professionals. Financial implications of not achieving the goal is also explored in this paper. This national patient safety goal is a multidisciplinary issue. The important roles of other professionals will be discussed as well as nursing leadership.

If you are ever in doubt about hiring an attorney for your personal injury case, then there are some aspects that you should keep in mind. One of the main questions you should ask yourself is whether your case is simple or complex. The severity of your injuries will also decide whether you require Personal Injury Lawyer Vaughan.

The results can be catastrophic for the patient when doctors act carelessly. It is not surprising, then, that damage awards in medical malpractice cases are among the largest of all personal injury cases. Damages may include medical expenses, physical pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost wages, decreases in earning potential, punitive damages, as well as compensation for complete or partial disfigurement, death, and impairment.

In this report is a fully reasoned quantification of, our client, Mr. Steven Pearson’s personal injury claim against Mr. Fred Prendergast.

The scenario is a horrendous string of coincidences that resulted in a tragedy. However, every party carries some responsibility for the eventual double amputation. This paper examines each of the parties, their possible liability and how that is covered by negligence law.