Reflection Of A Look At The Medical Concertion Of The Accounter

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).

Contrary to the alleged, Dr. Brock refuted the claim, defending that he never established a doctor-patient relationship with Anita, which relieves him of liability. In order to validate his refute, Dr. Brock provided four factual elements that were supported by his counterparts; Dr. Whitfield and Dr. Ketcham. The four elements that were presented in the affidavit included: (1) That there has never been a doctor-patient relationship between Dr. Brock and Anita Oliver, (2) Dr. Brock has never seen or talked to Anita or Cathy Oliver, (3) Dr. Brock was not employed, engaged or requested to serve as a consultant to treat Anita, (4) and Dr. Brock was not employed or engaged to consult with doctors treating Anita, concerning complaints or medical problems. In order to support Dr. Brock’s refute, Dr. Whitfield and Dr. Ketcham provided affidavit’s as

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

A visit note from Gregory Carico, MD (Internal Medicine), dated 01/23/2017, indicated that the claimant presented with a history of depression. She was involved in a motor vehicle accident on December 9th. She was relieved from work duties from 12/09 to 01/04 and was able to return to work on 01/10. She was again off work on 01/12 for therapy. She had pain in the thoracic part of the back and lower neck to middle back. She was diagnosed with a sprain of ligaments of the thoracic spine. An

Dr. Swartz then indicated based on the questionnaire completed by the injured worker at the time of his evaluation in or about June 2016, the applicant’s activities of daily living were not significantly effective. It is noted on the record the injured worker claimed he was able to do various activities. Based on the

On Monday, 11-16-2015 she recalled the claimant had punched in early for work that morning and did not say anything to her until shortly later around mid-morning when the claimant came into her office. She said the claimant was brief with her when she requested to file a Workers’ Compensation claim for her alleged right wrist injury coupled with pain to her right fingers. She claimed that her injury was work-related, and her injury occurred on 11-12-2015.

In referring to the allegations of the particular claim and to the CT claim of injuries which Mr. Arzuz has alleged within his post-termination claim, she argued that Mr. Arzuz had never reported or complained about the underlying medical conditions which he is complaining about to the body-parts which were affected by his claim. For the short amount of time he has been employed with her company, she said Mr. Arzuz’s sedentary position which requires very little physical activities to perform the job is not fast-paced or repetitive since the physical actions with the use of hands and fingers to assemble light pieces of motherboards require very little repetitious movements. After going through Mr. Arzuz’s personnel file, she found he never made a

Mr. James Bowan, Supervisor and Ms. Courtney Alday has been employed by the Domino Realty Management Company that manages the properties and upkeep at the Versailles on the Lake Properties. Lastly, these two witnesses had claimed that they were both employed within and during the time period of the alleged CT claim. Hence, these two witnesses whom each had direct contact and supervision of the claimant were not informed by the claimant or by any witnesses for the claimant any relevant documentation and evidence in support of the injuries pertaining to the claimants knees, neck, back and other multiple body parts, which have not specifically made within the CT claim.

On Thursday, 10/22/2015 the claimant stated he reported for work pain-free and was not suffering from any pain or discomfort from four other work related injuries that he reported as claims and received judgments. The claimant was unable to account for the real dates of his past work-related injuries that occurred between 2010 and 1/2013. The claimants past industrial-related injuries ranged from a left wrist injury, head injury and two separate right wrist injuries which he says did not include any injury to any other body parts.

Ms. Almanza claimed she researched and provided the claimant’s entire personnel file for this investigation and stated she was not aware of any industrial-related injuries associated with the claimants said injuries, by noting that no treating physicians ever provided any causation or the implied injuries. She provided proof with the claimant’s personnel file taken into as evidence by stating there was no medical evidence, doctors note or request of modified work duties to suggest any medical

I attended a hearing on your behalf in the above-referenced matter before Judge Burke in Hudson, New York, on 05/17/2017. The claimant was present by phone and was represented by attorney Bob King. Mr. Rumsey was present from the Special Funds 15-8 Unit.

I attended a hearing on your behalf in the above matter before Judge Burke in Hudson, New York, on 05/17/2017. The claimant was present and represented by attorney Ed DeLauter. Your insured, Robert George, was present to give testimony.

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at approximately 10:00am I obtained a statement from the complainant patient Walter Rysiejko located in the Greenberg Pavilion 2-North room 208.

Please see written report completed by Anderson. Anderson said while she was assessing Brown she complained about her hip. Anderson stated Brown received an x-ray of her hip and the results showed a fracture. I requested to speak to Beverly Brown about her stay at her son’s home. When Brown came into the room, I saw she was in a wheel chair. It appeared she had suffered a stroke at some time and she was unable to use her left arm. I saw it had also affected her left side of her

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.