Negligence Paper

A nurse attending stated “during the morning’s second surgery, he actually dozed off. The nurse took him aside and recommended that he take a break, but he refused and returned to the operation.” The nurse here was in fault in more ways than one. This nurse should never allowed the doctor return back to operate on the patient, he should have been removed from the operating room immediately. The nurse should have

Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US, right behind heart disease and cancer. More than 200,000 people die annually as a result of diagnostic mistakes and negligence by healthcare professionals (Washingtonpost, 2016). In the healthcare industry, even the smallest mistakes and oversight could lead to severe consequences for both the patient and professionals. A healthcare professional would be held liable for any discrepancies that causes harm. The following case will analyze the ethical issue and negligence that lead to the death of an elderly woman.

There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen. The 'neighbour principle' was established in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932).

Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to

One of the problems with malpractice is that sometimes we have a hard time recognizing it. We may not know what exactly constitutes medical malpractice, or what qualifies as medical malpractice. Even worse, we often don't know what our course of action should

Negligence is the failure to do something. Many medical cases are filed as medical malpractice suits, “medical malpractice is professional misconduct. Malpractice differs from negligence because it is performed by a license medical professional” (Flight 2). The case of Horton V. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center can be used as a primary example where negligence, “failure to take reasonable precautions to protect others from the risk of harm” (Flight 33), is visible.

This paper is about the Case of Jacob and his diseased leg. Clinical negligence is one the main causes that led to the infection of Jacobs’s leg. It later resulted in his life being altered due to the fact that it prolonged his healing process because of a mistake that his own physician had made. The key component of integrity and honesty wasn’t exercised in this situation because of the lack of maintaining high moral and ethical conducts when treating Jacob. Due to this negligence, the consequences will be affected by both parties in which will result in taking it to the next level by taking Dr. M to court. This case should be treated as a civil action law suit because a wrongful act was committed. The use of clinical protocols helps healthcare professionals establish appropriate treatments and care for the patients.

Negligence per se is when there is a form of negligence on the violation of public duty when there is a failure of care administered. It is also applied when a person does something that is not part of reasonable behavior. A plaintiff does not necessarily have to prove otherwise that a reasonable person could have acted any different in a situation. The way for a plaintiff to generally try and prove that the defendant has violated the statute to where the acts of the defendant could have caused damage or pain to where it was against what the statute represents and prevents. For example, if a doctor was operating on a person and accidently leaves an instrument that was used inside of the person that would be considered negligent under those

When assessing whether a no fault regime is better than a negligence rule in dealing with the causes and consequences of medical error, it would seem prudent to first understand the meaning of the term “medical error”. Liang defines medical error as ‘a mistake, inadvertent occurrence, or unintended event in health-care delivery which may, or may not, result in patient injury’ (2000, p.542). The consequence of these errors (or adverse events) that lead to patient injury, and the method by which we determine and administer compensation for such injuries, has been the source of heated debate amongst scholars in recent

A second issue is malpractice. Malpractice issues are always present in an unstable environment where patients will seek to remedy an incident if they feel they have been harmed (Hamric, 2009). It is important to always act in a reasonable way as a health care clinician but unfortunately there are always those who are negligent in their actions as practitioners.

It would certainly be standard care to watch extremities for lack of circulation yet this was not done. When cutting the cast not only did the Dr. cut him the first time but then to continue without any precautions and cut the other side too is certainly misconduct. While reading other court documents in this case it was also stated that because of the swelling of the leg, the cast should not have been put on until some of the swelling went down. Dr. Alexander didn't take this in to account either. Clearly an expertise should have been called in for this

When an individual consents to any type of surgery, there are many things that can run through one’s mind. It is impossible to be one hundred percent sure that the surgery will be completed perfectly and without error. Humans are not perfect, and mistakes are inevitable. However, when a patient wakes up from a liver transplant surgery to find burns on his neck and shoulder due to a fire caused from defibrillation, as well as a failed liver transplant, there is justice to be served. Robbin Reeves woke up from his surgery to this horrific nightmare. In order to prove medical malpractice in Reeves case, we will prove breach of duty issues, the injury caused by breach of duty, and the measurable damages from the injury.

Below is the memorandum for the negligence action regarding our client, Mr. Ragnarr Loobrok. To succeed in a claim of negligence, it must be proven that, on the balance of probabilities, that a duty of care was owed by the State of Victoria to prevent him from getting arrested once his bail conditions had been formally changed.

Medical malpractice happens when a hospital, doctor or other health care professional, perform negligence through their practice and causes an injury to a patient, it may be the result of mistakes in diagnosis, management and after care or health management. (Podgers, 2007)

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable