Module 06 Written Assignment
Hall Vs. Hilbun
Eliza B. Gray
Rasmussen College
Authors Note: This paper is being submitted on the 18th of March 2013 for the winter semester of Medical Law and Ethics section 05.
Hall Vs. Hilbun
The case of Hall versus Hilbun is a case in which an exploratory surgery was conducted to try to locate a possible blockage in the small bowel to alleviate abdominal pain. Mrs. Hall went into the hospital complaining of abdominal pain, upon being seen by doctors she was treated by a general surgeon by the name of Dr. Hilbun who stated he thought the pain was due to a blockage in the small bowel and thought an exploratory surgery was deemed appropriate for treatment. Mrs Hall consented to the surgery and at
…show more content…
Hilbun alleging that he failed to give attending nursing staff proper care instructions for Mrs. Hall nor had he provided her case with proper post-surgery follow up. Mr. Hall and her lawyers were able to find an expert witness by the name of Dr. Hoerr to provide testimony proving the alleged malpractice. During the trial Dr. Hoerr’s testimony was thrown out and deemed inaccurate due to the fact that he was not familiar with the local standard of care a patient would receive from a different doctor in the general area.
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.
Upon reviewing the four D’s I think that it is clear that Mrs. Halls death was not a direct result of Dr. Hilbuns actions or lack of action. While the surgery did result in a sponge being left in Mrs. Hall’s abdomen that sponge did not directly result in
Aldina, thank you for the effort in describing the incident that occurred at Bright Road, and the implications this had for Bright Road and Dr. Fredericks. There were a few good points that you made when trying to support your report, first, you were able to clarify that Mr. Davis had made changes to his consent form prior to the treatment. Then, that Dr. Fredericks agreed that he relied on what he viewed as the patient’s verbal consent to proceed with the procedure, and that he probably did not look at the written consent before the surgery. You were able to identify that this procedure caused long-term harm to Mr. Davis, because he would have to use additional medication that can put him in danger, as well as the potential problem with the
In the Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital case, the plaintiff was scheduled to have a pin fragment surgically removed from his hip. Johnson’s femoral nerve and artery were severed during the surgery done by Dr. Salinsky. The physician was not
The scenario and the details presented herein adequately meet the basic established criteria for a malpractice claim to be filed on the plaintiff’s behalf against Miraculous Regional Health System (MRHS henceforth). The circumstances surrounding Ms. Bonnie Bowser’s unexpected demise calls into question the most basic principles involved in caring of a patient under provider’s care. In legal terms, those fundamentals include the following four pillars below:
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
If a medical malpractice case goes to court, the plaintiff (the patient) needs a medical malpractice lawyer (a lawyer specialized on this type of cases). Cases like this are very expensive and very difficult to win. The plaintiff and the medical malpractice lawyer must clearly establish the tort of negligence in order to have a successful medical malpractice claim. Just like in every tort case, the parties share information they discovered. The information could include depositions, interrogatories and requests of documents. It is possible that the case could be solved pre-trial, only if both parties agree on negotiated terms. The case only goes to trial if the parties cannot
Medical malpractice might lie in this case if the doctors to bear out the responsibility to exercise that degree of knowledge, care, skill, and diligence by the staff. In this scenario professional relationship arouse when the plaintiff was seeing medical treatment. This treatment continued when plaintiff was diagnosed to commit suicide and harm himself. The medical judgment was applied by the doctors according their knowledge and experience. Plaintiff was restrained as medical management based in his diagnosis and not cooperating with the hospital staff. The restrain was lawful because of the doctor’s diagnosis that the plaintiff was in danger.
I agree with the court’s decision. When a patient goes to the emergency room it is their belief that the physician and staff are licensed and working within their scope of practice, in their best interest, and to do no harm. Society has become very litigious; with many lawsuits not being cases of negligence or error. This lawsuit invoked changes to failed hospital practices and practice not being followed. These changes will be for the benefit of future patients. “The Darling decision effected two radical changes in hospital liability
When they cause harm to a patient by rendering their services in a negligent manner, medical malpractice law governs the liability of doctors and other treatment providers. All states have their own laws and procedures to handle these specialized personal injury cases. In general terms, a doctor will be held liable if his or her conduct fails to meet the "standard of care" provided by other doctors under
Angie M sought relief after her trial court committed erred in her case against physician Robert Hiemstra by sustaining a demurrer for two causes of action without leave to amend and granted a motion to strike her claim for punitive damages. Hiemstra was charged with unlawful seduction of, and relations with, a minor, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and battery. Hiemstra employed Angie and learned of her dysfunctional family background and her other particular vulnerabilities, which he used to create a dependent relationship between the two asserted enough evidence to fulfill the "outrageous" conduct requirement for intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action Also,
Other issues that are relevant to this discussion is the nurse neglecting and not handling the procedure correctly. There are various ways that this situation could have been avoided; therefore there can be several law suits filed. This would be considered a medical error on the nurse’s part. When being employed in the health industry always makes sure to document everything regarding to the patient. One of the presidents of the California hospital made it appoint to say that they will investigate ways to improve their patient care for the future.
On July 13, 2005 a 36 year old man died after he developed respiratory complications following an elective hernia repair. The defendant noted during the preoperative anesthesia evaluation that the patient had never been intubated and had required a tracheostomy for a previous surgery in 1992. The patient asked during the evaluation to be put asleep during the surgery. Despite the patient’s history of obesity, asthma, and impaired respiratory function, the defendant went ahead and
One can sue a health practitioner for medical malpractice if he or she failed to establish an effective communication with his or her patient and in turn, has not provided any form of consent. Medical malpractice can also be considered for the incompetence that a surgeon has displayed with regard to the procedure, thereby causing multiple injuries and health complications on the patient. Finally, one can file a malpractice lawsuit due to a practitioner’s violation of duty which resulted to damages such as paralysis or death on the part of the patient (Health Leaders Media,
The defendant did not disclose the inherent risks that could have arisen from the surgery. The resultant was a lot of complications that resulted in a series of new surgeries that affected the patient significantly. Regarding this case, I believe that the defendant was guilty. He had a duty to disclose all the risks that could have arisen from the surgery. His failure to disclose such information means that he failed in obtaining informed consent from the patient. The main legal principle that prevails, in this case, is the informed consent. The patients have the right to information on the risks and benefits that may arise from a medical practice. The doctors ought to respect this right and ensure that they provide informed consent. Failure to obtain informed consent could lead to negligence since the doctor owes the duty of care to the
It was obvious to the fact that the hospital staff lacked communication skills. Mrs. King demanded the nurse to get information or an update from the doctor on more than one occasion. Instead the nurse ignoring Mrs. King's request for reevaluation by a doctor. The signs of dehydration was clear; when the patient began to drank water from her bath towel, as stated by Mrs. King. The nurse that was acting suspiciously should have been pull of duty or even evaluated. Instead, the doctor agreed with the mother and done nothing about the nurse suspicious acts. It appears that the patient best interest was not taken into consideration. As an 18 month old child the mother was doing her job as being a parent and an advocate for her daughter. It was
It was held in this case that the staff members of the hospital had not taken proper care of the patient and so the court held liable the hospital thus it is the duty of the staff members also to take care. The doctor is not held liable for every injury caused to the patient, the injury cured only under his treatment can only be held liable if proper care is not taken by the doctor. It should show all possible reasons for the injury caused than only the compensation can be