High Negligence Case Study

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 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).

The negligence of this incident had a negative impact on the patient’s family members. Approximately 25% of cases involving medical negligence involve poor nursing care. Another negative aspect was patient’s family follow up was poor resulting in lack of importance highlighted on the pressure wounds. Ashley (2003) states nurses can be sued for malpractice, this means he or she is being sued for “negligence”. Furthermore, the nursing health professionals can lose its credibility among a community as they failed to provide a holistic care for the patient. However, a positive outcome was nurses were able to reflect among this evidence based practice to assist in better quality in patient

This duty was then breached. Either care was not administered, or it was ministered improperly. The quality of the care is established through the testimony of expert testimony from other doctors.

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

Charleston Community Memorial Hospital proved a corporate negligence doctrine in the case (Pozgar, 2013). The court found a jury could reasonably find negligence due to the fact that staff did not test for circulation as often as needed, it was concluded that skilled nurses would have been aware of circulation problems, informing attending staff promptly (Law School Case Briefs,2013). There was no argument that the defendant, the hospital in this case, failed to review physicians work, or require a consultation. A jury found that this failure was within reason to assume a negligent act was performed, or not performed in this case (Law School Case Briefs,2013). A person goes to a hospital and within reason expects the hospital to treat them (Pozgar, 2013). There is a legitimate basis in this case to hold the hospital vicariously responsible for torts of its employed staff (Law School Case Briefs,2013). In Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, the jury found negligence by both the doctor and the nursing staff, this was supported with evidence during the trial (Law School Case

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 hospital and physician were both found to be negligent. Elements of negligence are (injuryclaimcoach, 2017):

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

Our text defines a tort as “a civil wrong” and negligence as “a tort, a civil or personal wrong” (Pozgar, 2012). Negligence as it is related to healthcare is an unintentional commission or omission of an act that a reasonably prudent person or organization would or would not do under normal circumstances. Not following a recognized standard of care could be considered negligence. The case I have chosen to study is one from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City Maryland and is that of Enso Martinez a minor by and through his parent (Rebecca Fielding) vs The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore Maryland July 2013. I would describe this as a landmark, “David vs Goliath” case

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

“The definition of a health professional is a person who works to protect and improve people’s health by the diagnosis and treatment of illness to bring about a complete recovery from mental, physical and social perspectives, either directly or indirectly (Kurban, 2010, pg. 760).” Nurses in the community today have acquired an increasing responsibility to intervene with medical decisions. In the past, there were clear differences between nurses and doctors. It was more common for a nurse to be supervised directly under the physician. They are not just performing Doctor’s orders anymore. The nurse role in patient care has been widely expanded. Allegations against someone can be one of the most stressful moments of their careers. Negligence

The nurses Mitchell and Galle, while working in the Quality assurance department of the hospital found issues with Dr. Arafiles practice that clearly jeopardized patient safety. The nurses possessed an ethical obligation to report the malpractice, moreover, if the reporting of what is presumed to be illegal behavior is performed in good faith then the action is legal per the Texas Supreme Court (Sack, 2010).

25). Unfortunately, the article regarding Mr. Benson’s case did not give detail on whether or not proper documentation had occurred. However, one can assume documentation was not done properly as the wrong leg had been amputated. If proper documentation had been completed in Mr. Benson’s case, it is possible someone besides the surgeon may have caught the wrong leg was about to be amputated. An example of proper documentation would be the consenting of the patient for surgery. Mr. Benson had to have been consented for surgery, which means a doctor or a nurse practioner would discussed with the patient which leg was to be amputated, signs and symptoms of complications and what to expect after surgery. If there was any question once the patient was in the operating room, which leg to amputate, anyone could have looked in the patient’s chart to see what Mr. Benson had been consented for. Documentation of the time out could have also prevented Mr. Benson from having the wrong leg amputated. The reason being is, everyone involved in the case would have stopped and made sure the right patient was in the operating room and the right surgery was to be performed so it could be documented this act was completed. Not only proper documentation could have prevented this horrible act but also the help of the nurses could have prevented a mistake like this from happening.

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.