Perin V Cervical Fusion Essay

The case involving Perin v. Hayne seeks to determine if the defendant Dr. Robert Hayne, was in any way negligent when he performed a surgical procedure on the plaintiff Ilene Perin, described as a cervical fusion. This particular procedure sought to alleviate pressure, numbness, weakness and pain in the plaintiff’s back. As a result of this procedure, the plaintiff was left with vocal cord damage that severely diminished her ability to speak above a whisper. This is supported by the reading, “but plaintiff alleged she suffered paralysis of a vocal cord because of injury to the right recurrent laryngeal nerve during surgery” (Showalter, 2017, pg.171). The plaintiff, Ilene Perin, filed suit against the defendant Dr. Hayne, under the guise of res ipsa loquitur, specific negligence, battery and or trespass and breach of express warranty. Applicable law and evidence must be applied in this case to determine if there was a considerable difference between the consented surgical procedure and the surgery that was actually done.

The Plaintiff, Keller, sued the defendant, DeLong. DeLong was driving Kellers car at Tyngsboro, Massachusetts at approximately 11:40p.m. on April 14, 1963, DeLong collided with a utility pole at the side of the highway. The Trial Court ruled that the sole cause of the accident was the fact that the defendant dozed off to sleep and did not awaken in time to avoid collision with the pole. The driver showed no sign he was going to fall asleep. Defendant, Carl DeLong, suddenly and unexpectedly dozed at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Defendant, DeLong, was not found negligent. Vacated; reversed, affirming trial court’s judgment.

The student 's motion for summary judgment was granted by the court and dismissed Drakers claims against the students for defamation and libel per se. The students and their families then had to file another motion for summary judgment regarding Draker’s remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Once this happened, Draker filed her third amended petition alleging the students only for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence and gross negligence as to the parents. Eric Goldman states, “the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because under TX law the cause of action is a gap-filler, and there was no gap given that the defamation doctrine putatively governs these facts.” Along with her third amended petition, Draker filed a motion for continuance. This motion would give her more time to look into the facts of her remaining claims. This motion was denied by the trial court. Along with the denial of Drakers motion, the court granted the Schreibers ' and the Todds ' motion for summary judgment. Draker argues that the trial court made three mistakes. These mistakes, as listed in the case are (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the students on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of the parents on her claims of negligence and gross negligence; and (3) denying her motion for continuance and

Facts Plaintiff Nosrat Khajavi, who is an anesthesiologist, was terminated under an oral contract stating for a specified term. This was caused by a dispute over the plaintiff and a ophthalmologist on how the proceeding should be on the specific surgery that happened that happened in the operating room which lead to an bigger argument. The ophthalmologist’s brother was the head of the anesthesia group. Then Feather River Anesthesia

During the examination, the Plaintiff told him her pain was a three out of ten, with a one being the lowest and ten being the highest. The results of his neurological examination and examination on the Plaintiff’s range of motion was normal. With regard to the Plaintiff’s pre-existing history, the only records he reviewed were those from Dr. Fichtel. He did not review the Plaintiff’s medical records from 2000. He testified that based on his review of an MRI taken prior to the Plaintiff’s 2007 surgery and a CT scan taken one year after the surgery, he only saw a “very mild” progression of her cervical condition at C3-4, C4-5 and

After several X-rays, it was determined that Plaintiff suffered a fractured vertebrae of the L4 vertebrae. See Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions No. 17, Exhibit No. 5, Plaintiff’s Medical Chart/Notes dated February 11, 2014 and Exhibit 8, Plaintiff’s back X-ray dated February 11, 2014.

See Electcrostim Med. Servs., Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 962 F. Supp. 2d 887, 898-99 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (granting motion to dismiss); Encompass Office Solutions, Inc. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-02487-L, 2012 WL 3030376, *8-*9 (N.D. Tex. July 25, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss); Team Healthcare/Diagnostic Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Tex., No. 3:10-cv-1441-BH, 2012 WL 1617087, *6 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss); Mid-Town Surgical Ctr., LLP v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tex., No. H-11-2086 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2012) (granting motion to dismiss); DAC Surgical Partners, P.A. v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., No. H-11-1355, 2011 WL 3841946, *6 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss);

Defendant Dr. Brandon Iron respectfully moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 3212(a) of the New York Civil Practice Law & Rules, to grant a motion for Summary Judgement in response to Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress Claim. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Iron intentionally inflicted emotional distress while performing a surgical procedure. Iron contends that the marking does not satisfy the extreme and outrageous behavior element. Absent such extreme and outrageous behavior, the cause of action cannot survive as a matter of law and the defendant should be granted a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

Spinal fusion is a procedure to make 2 or more of the bones in your spinal column (vertebrae) grow together (fuse). This procedure stops movement between the vertebrae and can relieve pain and prevent deformity.

* Research for similar cases with the same injury but with settlements far greater than $100,000. The bigger its difference from the client’s demands, the better it would be. Present these case citations to the court and by the principle of perceptual contrast, it will drive home the point to the jury that the plaintiff’s demand is indeed very

As requested, I have reviewed the facts of the above-captioned file, along with the applicable law and summarized same in this memorandum. Mrs. Mary Smith suffered an injury to her right ankle in an automobile accident on 10/3/95. After surgery and months of rehabilitation, Mrs. Smith still suffers daily. I have researched the facts regarding a personal injury action against Paul Joseph, as well as a medical malpractice action against the medical providers.

16. By reason of said negligence and collision aforesaid, the plaintiff has suffered general, special, incidental and consequential damages as the direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the defendant, in an amount that shall be fully proven at the time to trial. These damages include injuries consisting of but not limited to, bruises, contusions, strain to all the muscles of his body, nine broken bones in plaintiff’s jaw and dislocation of his jaw, which had to be wired back together; the injuries thus received by plaintiff have greatly impaired his health, strength, and activity and have thereby caused and continue to cause him great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering and extreme shock to plaintiff’s nervous system. These damages include, but are not limited to, damages for general pain and suffering, damages for loss of enjoyment of life, both past and future, medical and medical related expenses, both past and future, emotional distress, both past and future, both past and future, and all other ordinary, incidental, or consequential damages would or could be reasonably anticipated to arise under the circumstances.

Cervical auscultation (CA) has been used to assess the pathophysiology of the swallowing process based on the swallowing sounds during deglutition \cite{}. In CA method, a stethoscope or an acoustic detector such as a microphone (Mic) or an accelerometry (ACC) is placed on the patient’s cervical skin in the region of the larynx to listen or record the swallowing acoustic vibrations \cite{,,}. Acoustic information provided in this method is corresponding to the movement of the hyolaryngeal structure during the act of deglutition \cite{}, which is an essential component of the swallowing function and would provide important information regarding the abnormality in the swallowing function \cite{}.

Nowadays, everyone is too busy to care about their health. It often happens that due to long tiring day we face several health related issues. One of such common medical condition that needs prompt care is cervical pain which has become common amongst people of all age group. If you too are going through such unbearable pain then worry no more, buy best in quality cervical supports online at the best price in India from Paytm and get relief from it. Cervical pain can results from various reasons like neck strain or injury, a herniated disc, a pinched nerve or any other degenerative disc disease.