High Negligence Case Study

In this case, although the error started from the transmission of the discharge note to the home health care agency, Physical Therapist and Physical Therapist Assistant made number of mistakes in terms of clinical practice and delegation. First of all, completion and accuracy of patient’s physical therapy record is a professional responsibility of a supervising Physical therapist.1(p4) However, the PT failed to read the hospital discharge referral and documented incomplete and inaccurate plan of care. As a result, important information such as un-cemented prosthesis in situ and weight bearing limitations were not documented. In addition to that PTA elected to follow a protocol for cemented hip arthroplasty without referring back to PT for the missing information in the assessment. According to Texas Board of Physical Therapy examiners rule, “PTA may not specify and/or perform definitive (decisive, conclusive, final) evaluative and assessment procedures.”1(p5) Hence, it was also a mistake of the PTA to conclude the assessment and elect the inappropriate plan of care.

The plaintiff in Ard v. East Jefferson General Hospital, stated on 20 May, she had rang the nurses station to inform the nursing staff that her husband was experiencing symptoms of nausea, pain, and shortness of breathe. After ringing the call button for several times her spouse received his medication. Mrs. Ard noticed that her husband continued to have difficulty breathing and ringing from side to side, the patient spouse rang the nursing station for approximately an hour and twenty-five minutes until the defendant (Ms. Florscheim) enter the room and initiated a code blue, which Mr. Ard didn’t recover. The expert witness testified that the defendant failed to provide the standard of care concerning the decease and should have read the physician’s progress notes stating patient is high risk upon assessment and observation. The defendant testified she checked on the patient but no documentation was noted. The defendant expert witness disagrees with breech of duty, which upon cross-examination the expert witness agrees with the breech of duty. The district judge, upon judgment, the defendant failed to provide the standard of care (Pozgar, 2012, p. 215-216) and award the plaintiff for damages from $50,000 to $150,000 (Pozgar, 2012, p. 242).

This proceeding before a Medical Review Panel, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. §§ 40:1299.41, et seq., is brought by Jimmy Martinez against multiple health care providers, including Dr. Mark Kappelman, a qualified health care provider entitled to have the claim filed against him reviewed by this Panel. The claims made against Dr. Kappelman are mere allegations without support and proof. In a medical malpractice case the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that Dr. Mark Kappelman’s actions in this matter fell below the standard of care required of similar health care providers. The claimant also bears the burden of proving whether any such alleged act or acts of negligence caused any injuries. It is the duty of the

When considering the legalities of this scenario, negligence, vicarious liability, and physician- patient relationship are a few components that affect the outcome of a lawsuit. The amount of legal torts that were violated in this case was enough to cause disputes between patients and healthcare staff. Negligence is a familiar tort that occurs much more than it needs too. Unfortunately in this case, vicarious liability and patient-physician relationship are two considerations that influence this case as well.

The importance of ensuring that claimants are given a reasonable opportunity to present their claim to obtain a fair outcome from the court was stated by Peter Walsh:

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.

The second noncompliance was between a physician assistance and a nurse, the physician assistance who admit the noncompliance act by being careless about the patients in the observation unit, but the nurse was will educated about the polices and procedures, according to that he submit a claim to an compliance officer to take care of that act.

The first legal consideration in this case is related to corporate liability. The hospital itself is negligent under this doctrine. Corporate negligence is the failure to provide the equipment, facilities, and staff to carry out the duties of the corporation in accordance with the established standard of conduct (Showalter, 2007). Corporate negligence is evident in this case in regard to the failure to ensure that sufficient healthcare personnel were available to provide the established standard of care to the patients in the facility. Moreover, the personnel that were required to remain at the hospital from the day shift were likely

Kathy has a weight bearing restriction in place, is currently utilizing a wheelchair for mobility, and is a hands on one person assist with transfers. Judy shares that the previous day Kathy and the physical therapist worked with Joe and herself on transfers into and from the car so they can take her to her scheduled appointment with the orthopedic doctor on Friday. Judy shares that it is expected that the doctor will modify the weight restriction at the appointment. Judy and SSA spoke about a time frame for discharge. Judy shares there is no time frame established. Per Judy, Kathy’s private insurance only has twenty days of physical therapy remaining in the plan and does not know what happens at the end of the twenty days if Kathy needs additional therapy. She has plans to contact Humana later this day to discuss Kathy’s insurance benefits. We discussed that Kathy believes she has an UTI and that a sample of her urine was taken before lunch for testing. We discussed that Kathy is satisfied with the Care Springs facility, the food served, and nurses assigned to work with her. During the visit, Kathy asked about Wildey staff and of all who was aware of her injury. We discussed her

Negligence is part of tort law and deals with hardships between individuals where one party has suffered as a result of something the other party did or did not do. The purpose of negligence is to receive compensation for the injuries sustained. (Newnham, 2000). Teachers are relied upon to prepare lesson plans, teach classes and grade student’s work. Encouraging students and acting as teacher–advisors for students. Maintaining discipline in the classroom. (What are the responsibilities of teachers?, 2016).

In the state of Minnesota it is a landlord’s duty “that the premises and all common areas are fit for the use intended by the parties.” Minn. Stat. 504B.161, subd. 1(1) (2015). Many negligence cases have interpreted this law in different ways that rely on the specific conditions during the time of the incident, and if the event was reasonably foreseeable and preventable. The foreseeability of an event can be determined within a reasonable amount of care for the premises. Frye v. Huntington Point Apartment Bldg., A05-2356, 2006 WL 1704234, 2 (Minn. Ct. App, 2006). Part of the reasonable care includes a duty to inspect, repair, and inform tenants of dangers. Id. In order to win, one must prove all four elements of a negligence claim: one, did the landlord have a duty to uphold; two, did the landlord violate that duty; three, was someone injured; four, did the violation of the duty cause the injury. Id. In regards to negligence claims that involve lighting, the key factor that needs to be proven is whether or not the plaintiff could reasonably see what they were doing. Namchek v. Tulley, 259 Minn. 469, 107 N.W.2d 856, 472 (1961). As well accumulations of water on stairways are dangerous and if resulting from landlord negligence are the basis for a claim. Frye v. Huntington Point Apartment Bldg., A05-2356, 2006

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.

I spoke with David Architectural’s attorney and she is going to ask Judge Brennen for an additional thirty days to decide how to proceed on the fourth-party complaint against SCB and Arkema. The reason being she received roughly 70,000 project documents from Power and the plaintiff in the last two weeks and has not been able to get through them all. I asked what she is looking for and she said her consultant believes the undercoating was not applied to the railings. As a result, she is looking to determine if SCB directed that the undercoating did not need to be applied. I responded, “Even if we did, which I doubt, so what? You still would not have a negligence claim because of the Economic Loss Doctrine.” In response, she stated that she is looking to see if there was something that brings the claim within the exceptions. I told her the facts of the claim do not fall within the recognized

On 12/25/16 at approximately 2037hours, my partner Officer Thebeau #8402, and I, Officer Harrell #3441, were dispatched to a residential burglary call at 193 W. Hammond St. The comments of the call stated the reporting person, (Heidi Robles), just arrived home, and the home was ransacked.

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.