Palo Devo Healthcare Case

hospital, which shows that there was clearly a lack of quality care being provided and that there was something that was

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).

On September 14, 2003 the plaintiff, Mrs. Cordero also diabetic, woke up being sick enough to go to the emergency room at Christ’s hospital. Being diagnosed with renal failure, Mrs. Cordero was

In 2006 the officer and firefighters tried to fight legally against being wrongfully fired. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its ruling after a lower level court ruled they should not have been let

The facts of this case are that Dr. Guiles who is self-conscious of his prostate cancer diagnosis is treated horrendously when he finally decides to have surgery ( Buchbinder, Shanks & Buchbinder, 2014). Considering that Dr. Guiles is already sensitive about his condition, his unbearable symptoms are not helping matters (Buchbinder et al, 2014). Upon arrival at the hospital, he is treated subpar. The admitting clerk is rude and unbecoming to a patient who isn’t feeling well and who is embarrassed about his sickness (Buchbinder et al., 2014). To make matters worse, he has to find his own way up to the floor by walking, which causes him to be even later in checking in because of the need to stop frequently to urinate as well as having difficulty in walking (Buchbinder et al., 2014). Once he arrives on the floor, the charge nurse is not welcoming and unprofessional (Buchbinder et al., 2014). After figuring out what to do with the paperwork; and the nurse aide delivers Dr. Guiles to his room, the nurse aide does not offer to help settle him in (Buchbinder et al., 2014). Therefore, Dr. Guiles is faced with battling obnoxious family members who are on his bed and to make matters worse someone is in the bathroom which doesn’t help his need of having to frequently urinate (Buchbinder et al., 2014). When the issues are brought up to the charge nurse, the charge nurse accuses Dr. Guiles of wanting preferential treatment

While the seriousness of a patient’s death should be investigated, the hospital failed to act promptly and investigate the supervisor’s or human resource (HR) department’s denial of reasonable accommodations or the previous errors made by the nurse. Therefore, the wrongful termination seems more likely to have been the case in this situation. The defense will show that rather than terminating her employment earlier the hospital waited until something catastrophic happened. The nurse took appropriate action discussing her health condition diagnosed by her physician that precludes her from working in the ER at full capacity with her supervisor. The nurse should have been given alternative assignments as appropriate or disability leave if no other alternative was available and should not have been terminated wrongfully after the incident (Pozgar,

A civil suit is commonly derived from a private party or individual, who alleges damages from duty of care. Once a civil case begins, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove, with evidence, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Conversely, the defendant must prove their affirmative defense against documented allegations. The Oliver versus Brock case proves the importance of supporting evidence as opposed to hearsay statements, to prove the truth of the matter. In the Oliver versus Brock case, Cathy (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Bryan Whitfield Memorial Hospital of Demopolis and the treating physicians Dr. F.S. Whitfield, Dr. Paul Ketcham and Dr. E.C. Brock (Defendant) for negligence of care. Analyzing the facts in

The event that essentially precipitated the criminal charges against Ann Mitchell and Vicki Galle was when they reported the unsafe medical practices of Dr. Ronaldo Arafiles. They stood up for many of Dr. Rolando Arafiles patients and their rights. They felt as if Dr. Arafiles was not providing standard care for his patients. After they filed an anonymous complaint to the Texas Medical Board (TMB), Winkler County Sherrif Robert Roberts requested copies of the confidential complaints and notified Dr. Arafiles. Following this action, the sheriff and Dr. Arafiles a attempted to retaliate against the two nurses (Sack, K). After reviewing the outcome of the case, the nurses were both impacted negatively. They will probably never be hired into the

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

There were many staff members that were willing to look up the amendments and what this case could have been protected by. Four out of five staff members agreed that the kids, John, Christopher, and Mary Beth shouldn’t have been suspended. Their analogy was that residents who were gay aren’t getting kicked out of this program. It’s how they respect other people’s opinions and how their behaviors are

On July 6, 2015 Ken Hammond Chief Investigator for BHA contacted me and asked I get a statement for either the CEO of Head of Human Resources as to why Dr. Gibson was released from services. I immediately sent an email to Rosemary Fotenos, Risk Management Coordinator for St Anthony’s Hospital and called her office leaving a voicemail.

The Deborah Heart and Lung Center should have immediately terminated Haworth due to the social contract that a hospital must owe to its employees and the general public of that of a safe working environment. This termination would be lawful because providing a safe environment for all employees would be negatively affected if Haworth were to stay working there. Other employees could feel uncomfortable or threatened by him.

performing duties and insubordination. Consequently, “she filed a federal lawsuit alleging a pattern of " discriminatory conduct, improper sexual advances, sexual and racial harassment and

On my observation now-I was not asked or debriefed at the time, nor did I imitate critically then-is that the circumstances and outcomes dictate that the doctor and members thereof acted less than professionally, and their conclusion and actions were not finely balanced, leaving the patients in a an unethical and morally conciliation position. The patient had owed a duty of care, which had not been provided by all involved at the critical moments. So although all parties worked from a position of beneficence, obliging to do good for all patients at the time, there is also a team failure in justifying their

I disagree! For several reasons, the court didn't feel the plaintiff met their expectation. The plaintiff felt their were "inadequate security" and improper employee background check", which he provided witnesses in this area. However, he fell short in providing expert witnesses in health care. All of this is understandable. But the point is, if we are injury and it was a result of malpractice, we should be entitled to some type of compensation without having to face numerous of barrier.