The Case Of Dr. Charles Smith

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.

Dr. Finch should not have had his license because he broke so many rules. He had no regards for ethics and he may have been psychotic himself. He broke all five of the principles of ethics. He had no sense of care for his patients. He seemed to be working for the money not to actually help people. He never actually helped any of his patients in fact he made many situations worse. He condoned unhealthy relationships with his

It is important to remember that if the professionals involved decide to investigate the matter when a suspected case of child abuse has been reported by the practitioner; then the practitioner’s records will be vital evidence and, as such, must be accurate. It may be many months after the event has taken place when the practitioner is

M was taking a look at his leg that was injured but seemed to be healing. All was thought to be well until one office visit the doctor went across the hall to check on another patient who seemed to have an infected leg. The doctor left the door open where confidentiality here was obviously not being taking into consideration for the patient he was seeing as well as others who were able to hear them. Since the door was open, his parents noticed that he did not change his gloves while entering that other room and came back to check on their son with no gloves on. Dr. M was concerned about Jacobs leg and told him to come back the following week while treating it with antibiotics. The following week he comes back only to see that he has developed osteomyelitis. This was the same infection that the other patient developed while under the care of his supervision. Jacobs delay in his recover cost him the opportunity to play football and a college scholarship. Jacobs’s parents then resorted to suing Dr. M because of his negligence and lack of medical

A young female at the age of 14, was kidnapped by David Maracle on May 26, 1997, Maracle pulled the female from the behind as she through a wooded. At that moment of time the female didn’t have any visuals, this was because a cloth was place over her eye and then was later replaced for duct tape. She was then directed to the assailant’s car where the first sexual attack accrued. A little while after the female was driven to an unidentified location where another sexual attack occurred.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Today we have a very serious charge before you. We have Dr Richard Kimball, who is before you on the charges of first-degree murder. However, he is not guilty based on our success to provide reasonable doubt that Kimball planned and deliberately kill his wife or that he was provoked into killing his wife in the heat of passion.

From the essay, The Dead Baby Mystery, Gawade starts with a court case that involves the murders of eight children of Marie Noe that no one could explain what happened. As Gawande writes, “some of the most respected pathologists of the time, could find no explanation for the crib deaths” (202) and “Foul play was strongly considered, but no evidence for was found” (202). What Gawande has written is that at the time, cases like these, child murder or accident, determines not easily. Even three decades later — the case reopened and she was charged — one of the officials that wrote back to Gawande stating “that there was no direct evidence to support the charges” (Gawande 204). That quote Gawande wrote to show that the charge came from indirect or circumstantial evidence. With what has happened to Noe and the children, Gawande postulates that charging people in the child abuse case is difficult to do because it uses circumstantial evidence. Thus, what I write for this paper will be a summary of Gawande's points in the essay The Dead Baby Mystery of how it is difficult to convict a Marie Noe in a child abuse case.

accounts of sexual abuse,But all the evidence of the case is pointing otherwise. Such as the

A 17 year old girl went to a job interview in the back of the accused’s (Ewanchuk) van. After the interview concluded, Ewanchuk invited her into his trailer to see some of his work. The complainant complied, and purposely left the trailer door open-- though Ewanchuk closed the door soon after, in a way where the complainant had thought he had locked it. The accused began a string of sexual touches, each more intimate than the previous, which the complainant said “no” to, only to have Ewanchuk continue with another advance shortly thereafter. Any compliance the complainant offered was due to fear of the altercation turning violent. Ewanchuk paid her $100 before she left and told her not to tell anyone about it.

Scott Starson, a brilliant physicist has been in and out of mental institutions due to his bipolar disorder. He was lastly admitted again after he made death threats to his roommates and was found not criminally responsible for that offense. His physicians suggested different sorts of treatment for his illness. Scott Starson refused to give consent to the treatment for reason that he had a scientific research to finish and he didn’t want the medications to slow him down. His physicians not finding him competent enough to critically make that kind of decision, brought the case

De'Azia's brother (unknown) father or grandfather (unknown) molested her two years ago. The father or grandfather touched De'Azia's vagina more than once. De'Azia told her mother (Ranodda) about what had happened. Ranodda did not believe De'Azia. Ranodda believed the father or grandfather. Ranodda allowed the father or grandfather to sleep in De'Azia's bedroom closet. The father/grandfather would come out of the closet when he wanted to touch De'Azia's vagina. The father or grandfather did not penetrate inside of De'Azia. The father or grandfather is in prison for molesting a little boy in Missouri. It is unknown have the father or grandfather been in Mississippi for De'Azia. It is unknown have this been reported the local law enforcement or CPS.

At about 1130 hrs police were dispatched to 2404 K ST SE for the report of a physical domestic in progress. Upon arrival, Leondra Joyner reported that she was assaulted by her 16 year old dauthger, Ayana Holloway. Leondra explained that they were in a dispute, which is a daily occurance between the two, when Ayana struck Leondra in the side of the face with her fist. I observed a red mark and a small cut on the right side of Leondra's face. Ayana admitted that she did in fact strike Leondra during the dispute, but stated that Leondra struck her as well. I did not observe any marks that would indicate an assault on

This concluded that the victims has to be at least 18 years of age, the case was investigated by one of the five largest police departments in the country, a medical exam must have been completed by either the county hospital personnel's or the SANE program and the results of the exam were examined by the state crime lab. This resulted in a sample size of 137 cases, which is relatively small compared to the number of sexual assault victims. The research was conducted by collecting case outcome data, which was the dependent variable. The outcomes were placed into four different categories, which consisted of the following: referred by police for prosecution, referred to a prosecutor, but not warranted for prosecution, warranted by prosecutor, but dropped or trial acquit and guilt plea or trial conviction. This study also compared DNA analysis findings, medical records of the assault, demographic information of the victims and the offenders and the results of the court case in both of the groups. The results of the study revealed that there was a “significant increase in criminal justice system case progression pre-SANE to post-SANE” (Campbell et al., 2012, p.237) . More sexual assault cases were moving further through the system, resulted in an increase in the number of cases that were prosecuted. The results also found a seasonal effect, which addressed how cases that were processed in December were less likely to achieve a higher

How would you feel if your doctor was a criminal that was still allowed to practice medicine? Or a Nazi doctor that did terrible things to Jews? What about someone who has had three botched brain surgeries within three months? All of these situations have actually occurred. Therefore, when doctors get their medical license taken away, they shouldn’t be able to get it back. In a court trial, they have to be found guilty of the crime they committed, to get their license revoked. For example, if doctors have to go to court, three basic things can happen with their medical license. First, it can be taken away. Second, it can be suspended for a period of time. Finally, they can keep it and go on probation with certain restrictions. When on probation,

I feel that Dr. P has a case in this situation. I feel he has the ability to sue for compensatory damages. I would argue that Dr. P is a public figure. As you said he is the foremost academic on exposure to violence and the human psyche. Since he is a public figure and his work is important to public interest. Because of this we have to prove malice. In this case we also have to determine how defamation of DR. P is present. We have to answer how his reputation is being harmed, how his standing in the community is being harmed.