Multiple Tort Claims

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).

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

a) Pharmacists have ethical and legal obligations to ensure that the prescriptions they fill are valid, both in that the physician must be prescribing the medication for a valid reason and that the person filling the prescription must be doing so for valid therapeutic reasons (ASHP, 2008; Brushwood, n.d.). The court needs to take these obligations into account, and then must determine whether the frequency with which the prescription was refilled would have required a pharmacist to check with the patient's physician or at least another pharmacist in order to determine if the pattern represented abuse (Brushwood, n.d.). The basic considerations before the court, then, are the pattern of behavior (i.e. prescription refilling) represented in the facts and the relationship of this pattern to the legal and ethical standards of pharmacists. The addition was certainly a foreseeable consequence, and this means that standard applications of negligence torts might also be applicable.

According to Attorney.com, Ohio malpractice law defines medical malpractice as when a medical professional, such as a doctor or a nurse, or a medical institution, such as a hospital, injures a patient during the course of a treatment. Furthermore, for this injury to be able to be considered medical malpractice, the doctor's actions must represent a breach, or violation, of the standard of care. A standard of care is defined as the generally accepted practices and procedures that all medical professionals in the area would administer for a patient suffering from a particular ailment. This standard of care varies depending on a number of factors, including the patient's general health as well as his or her age.

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

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

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

In 2010 a patient went to a local hospital in Woodland Hills California, to have a knee replacement surgery done, and the operating surgeon left a foreign object inside the knee after performing surgery.(CDOPH). (Jones 2012). It was found that their was a unidentified nurse working in the in the surgical unit who failed to do a correct count on the sponges before surgery and after. Further more she forged a technician signature on the operating room record who was suppose to do the count himself, but failed to do his job. The doctor himself did not follow the correct procedure, and stuffed a 4 by 4 saturated sponge with anesthetic inside of the incision, causing the patient to have terrible pain and a lump in the knee by the incision.(Jones 2012). The patient went to another hospital and it was discovered that a foreign object, a sponge was left in after the procedure. The patient had to have another operation to remove the sponge.

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).

In 1966, a Spanish couple welcomed a new baby to the world in a Denver hospital. Because the couple only spoke Spanish, communication between the couple and the healthcare staff was impaired. The mother had a history of syphilis, and it was difficult for the hospital to understand how the mother had been treated for this disease. After discussion between employees, a decision was made to treat their newborn for congenital syphilis and an order was written for Benzathine penicillin G 150,000U IM. The hospital pharmacist read the order incorrectly, mistaking the “U” for a zero making the order 1,500,000 units. The nurse caring for the baby expressed concern about injecting a high amount intramuscularly as the label on the bag instructed. Further discussion took place between staff, and a decision was made to administer the medication intravenously (IV) instead. The IV administration resulted in the death of the infant died. An autopsy later revealed that the baby did not have congenital syphilis, and therefore no treatment was truly needed (Aspden, 2007, p.43-44). Medication errors can be deadly as the previous example shows. A medication error is defined as, “any preventable event that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while

The hospital may not only be held liable but their accreditation will take a ding. They are held accountable for postoperative infections and must stay within a set standard. The facility is definitely hoping that they are not found liable.

Mrs. Smith Case clearly demonstrated the lack of duty to care from healthcare Providers (Nurses, Physicians, Residents) involved in this case. Certainly, Patient was admitted to the hospital for surgery and post-surgical care but the proper care was not provided and the patient contracted a staph infection which proof that the duty of care was breached. The injury, in this case, was evident. The patient not just contracted staph infection but also develops empyema due to the accumulation of pus in the lungs. Definitely, Cross contamination was the cause of the infection and the pulmonologist Dr. Holly Brighman consider this the reason of the infection. In addition, the nurse on duty was a witness of the attending and medical resident actions.

There are certain inherent risks of infections when you have surgeries, but it is also possible to get an infection simply due to the medical staff not following proper procedure. This negligence is a form of malpractice. A hospital is responsible for all of its medical staff. One red flag of an infection that may be malpractice is that the infection was not explained as a possible risk of the surgery. After your operation, you find that you have an infection that appears to have no source, and it is not related to the surgery in any way. If this infection has caused harm, you may be entitled to damages.

A hospital is responsible for the conduct of its physician if that employee hurts a patient when treating or dealing with a patient. Unnecessary surgeries are often related to wrong diagnosis. The reason operative surgeon asks their patients to undergo several tests is because they are afraid of missing a serious diagnosis that can lead to something bad. During pre-surgical evaluation, too often alternative physicians frequently offer a battery of tests. "While recommending an unnecessary surgery is not an act of medical malpractice in and of itself, there are always serious risks in any surgical procedure" ("Types of Medical Negligence," 2015). The injury could have been avoided by not having the surgical procedure, then the decision to order

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,