EMTALA Violated Case Summary

For this week’s discussion I have read the article assigned this week regarding HIPAA violations. I will summarize the case against the physician and what the HIPAA law states. I will also discuss what the penalties are for a HIPAA violation and if this physician could have faced further charges.

The physicians instead of making the call to the cardiology team sent the nurse to do so (Violation).

The Plaintiffs felt that since the hospital was licensed and accredited that they should be held responsible for their employees and their actions. It states in the regulations that any infraction of the bylaws imposes liability for the injury. At any time if Dr. Alexander had questions or concerns he could have reached out to an expert in this field to consult

In a similar case where a hospital was required to provide a timely peer review hearing before suspending a physician’s medical staff privileges, the results were not in favor of the plaintiff. The Encino Tarzana Regional Medical Center (ETRMC) was allegedly charged with abusing the peer review process. An obstetrician/gynecologist had his medical privileges suspended without prior notice and became involved in a surplus of disputes with the hospital. Under California law, the hospital has the right to suspend a physician’s staff privileges without a hearing if it finds the doctor as a danger to a patient’s health or safety. Dr. Mileikowsky’s reputation has presented a listing of complaints dated back 10 years so they hospital made a decision

15). Vickie Sorensen rashly applied a substance down the baby’s throat while Sorensen’s daughter sought an oxygen bottle. The first oxygen bottle was broken consequently Camille Wilcox ran to find another bottle. Sorensen was going to use a suction device, ‘“However, Bleak said, the grandmother stated that the device was too large to accomplish suction on a newborn”’ (Scott, par. 18). In the end, they could not find any equipment to help the struggling baby. The twin’s grandmother, a pediatric nurse, said, “she was shocked by Sorensen’s lack of equipment and preparation and said she believed that, with proper equipment, she could have kept the baby boy alive” (Scott, par. 20). Additionally, Sorensen was seen “using a technique that was 12 years out of date” (Alberty, par. 17). This was reported by a medic after a call was made to 911, and an ambulance arrived to the scene. The baby boy was reported dead once the mother was transported to an actual hospital (Scott). Furthermore, Vickie Sorensen did not have a medical license to practice. The first step in suing a doctor, everyone must take them up against the licensure board; however, Sorensen did not have one. Clearly her actions matched those of an unlicensed nurse. Midwives are a little different since they rely on years of experiences rather than actual medical

The case arises from the alleged negligence of Dr. George Paltrow the Chief of Surgery of Bright Road Health System. On November 28, 2012, Mrs. Smith, after undergoing surgery was placed in the post-surgery care unit along with four other patients. The plaintiff claims Dr. Paltrow and numerous hospital residents came in and performed routine examinations on all four of patients inside the care unit without changing gloves or washing their hands. This statement is corroborated by the account of Jennifer Brainard one of the nurses on duty during the incident. Ms. Brainard further cites that Dr. Paltrow and other residents performed a dressing change and examination on the patient that was diagnosed with staph infection first before moving on

A hospital employee violated several policies mandated in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. She failed to observe the minimum necessary requirement, did not follow the confidential communications requirements, and disclosed the patient’s treatment plan and medical condition. It also appeared that the hospital’s standard staff training procedures was not sufficiently evaluated.

Brassard case, No. 06636, 2010 WL 2764724, at *1 (Mass. Super. Mar. 23, 2010), where the Judgment was entered for the defendant. In this case, the court held that the defendant was not negligent in his care and treatment of the deceased patient. Here, Howard (the patient); like Honey; because of his prior medical history had significant risks of developing pulmonary embolism. He eventually died of pulmonary embolism without receiving adequate treatment to address the disease regardless his condition. The court held that Dr. Brassard didn’t depart from the standard in medical malpractice, because he wasn’t properly informed of the patient prior medical condition. Dr. Brassard’s failure to ask the patient about his previous medical condition and to read the modestly-sized medical record (29-30 pages) were not sufficient to establish negligent care and treatment of the deceased patient. Oppositely, in Honey’s case, her high exposure for pulmonary embolism was known before she departed from the Hospital. The in-home care by visiting nurses and physical therapists of Medi-Ready, Inc. purpose was to monitor her vital signs and blood pressure, and to prescribe medications in prevention of pulmonary embolism. The Court is likely to find that the non-administration of adequate treatment to prevent the pulmonary embolism was a departure from medical good practice because the physicians were informed of Honey condition

Approximately in 1998 while working in CT-ICU a patient coded and needed the insertions of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), which is a cardiac assist device. These pumps where stored in the cardiac catheterization lab. The supervisor along with a few others went to the unit to get the pump, on return the actual balloon itself was not brought back, which constituted another trip and further delay. The course of events to have to acquire different parts for the pump, caused delay of care. After more than one hour of resuscitative attempt, the patient succumbed and was pronounced. I was relief charge and the incident had to be written up with specifics as to what caused the delays. The physician along with the nurses had the policy changed

The case of Christi presented presents ethical problems people in the healthcare field face every day. In this case we are shown a women who is 22 weeks pregnant and suffering from preeclampsia (Panicola 119). Christi’s doctor recommends immediate delivery, despite the fetal consequences to the fetus. After considering her options, Christi ultimately decided to induce labor, because the potential risks to her health were too great. Cases like this offer ethical problems for both the client and their caretakers. Ethical issues presented in cases likes these effect both client and doctor/nurse.

The ultrasound did not show that the uterus contained a fetus. The patient’s hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) level was also lower than expected for a woman eight weeks pregnant. The doctor told the patient he suspected she had an ectopic pregnancy. When the doctor did the ultrasound on the patient while trying to explain and show her that there was no baby in her uterus the patient seemed very confused and did not seem to fully understand what that meant. The doctor explained to her again and told her she would have to terminate her pregnancy because the baby would not be able to grow much longer in the fallopian tube. I don’t think she realized initially that she would have to terminate the pregnancy and she naturally began to look saddened by the news. He then told the nurse to schedule the patient to the hospital so he could operate. Although there was nothing wrong with the way the doctor told the patient, I think he could have better explained to her why she needed to terminate the pregnancy and how waiting can be dangerous for her health if he waits to long to operate and her fallopian tube ruptures. She stayed in his office longer and later left and the nurse told the doctor she canceled her hospitalization and was getting a second opinion. I actually thought that was probably the best for her

In the case of Marlise Munoz a 33-year-old women suffered from cardiac arrest on November 26, 2013 although she had heart beat, Doctors informed Munoz husband, that the hospital wasn 't going to disconnect Marlise from the ventilator, because the Texas law prohibited it because she was 14 weeks pregnant. The Texas Advance Act states, "A doctor may not

I think you made some great points in your discussion. When it comes to who is at fault for this patients injuries and suffering I am at a stand still as well. I want to blame the surgeon because he or she didn’t catch the mistake, but the nurse on the postpartum unit is at some fault as well. Since the nurse didn’t chart what occurred with the patient we really have no clue what actually happened. It has been drilled into our minds that charting is so important. In my opinion, I feel like the nurse most likely was overwhelmed with the patients situation and lost track of time and what took place. “Courts expect nurses and health care providers to use their professional judgment before merely following written policy and procedures” (Guido,

More importantly for the concerns of the monitoring doctors being addressed here, malpractice liability requires the presence of a physician-patient relationship, which is in essence a contract principle. That relationship is created when the doctor offers, and the patient accepts, the service or treatment, and consideration is given. The monitoring doctor in this case has not offered to perform a service for the patient, and has

My great-grandmother passed away four years ago, under the care of irresponsible emergency medical staff at the LewisGale Pulaski community hospital. Her death was due to complications from a stroke, which could have been easily taken care of, had the hospital staff diagnosed her in a correct and timely manner. The medical staff took at least two hours to diagnose her stroke, then refused to give her stroke medication after they did make a diagnosis, claiming it was too late. In the following ethical review, I intend to discuss the effects of the issues with malpractice in this case in the form of failure to comply with the basic ethical concepts of nonmaleficence and beneficence. A patient should not be harmed or be refused necessary medication due to the treating physician’s personal opinion on the time period to administer medication.