St. Cloud Regional Medical Center Case Study

This case is extremely relevant to what is known as the four D’s of negligence; duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages. Duty is when a doctor and a patient have formed a relationship and said doctor has taken on the responsibility of taking care of the patient. Dereliction or failure to perform a duty, there must be some kind of proof that the doctor somehow neglected the doctor neglected the patient. Direct cause, there must be some kind of proof that what happened to the patient was a direct cause of how the doctor conducted himself or his failure to act which resulted in injury. Damages a patient must prove that harm was incurred by the direct result of the physicians actions.

Husband and wife, Gary and Renna Pehle were infected with HIV at the time they applied for life insurance with Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company. The couple did not know they were infected with HIV at the time. The insurance company ran blood tests from the Pehles. The Pehles then signed a contract form which was given to them by a Farm Bureau agent. A nurse from Farm Bureau watched as the Pehles signed the contract. Blood samples were sent to a third-party laboratory called LabOne. Farm Bureau then sent a notice to the Pehles rejecting them from their life insurance policy, which advised the couple that if they wished to have their application reviewed to contact their physician. The Pehles did not take any action in doing so. Two years past and Renna Pehle is confirmed to have AIDS. The Pehles then sues Farm Bureau, LabOne, and LabOne’s medical director Dr. J. Alexander Lowden for negligence, for failing to tell them they were HIV-positive.

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

The ethical committee should intervene to determine the ethical responsibilities of the medical and administrative staff. The people involved should be held accountable and give them the opportunity to communicate the patients about the medical

In today’s world, more healthcare facilities are operated by managed care. These types of facilities are use outside contractors to keep costs low. One type of scenario would be anesthesiologists or specialized doctors working at hospitals to treat patients, in doing so, the hospital pays only for time worked instead of having a full-time staff that is not occupied all of the time. In the case of Cordero v. Christ, Christ Hospital contracted an anesthesiologist whose work brought harm to a patient. Because the hospital did not have preponderance evidence showing Respondeat Superior, the jury brought summary judgement thus awarding the Corderos damages from both the principal and the contractor by way of Apparent Authority and Vicarious Liability. Had the principal and contractor worked with an agreement, and followed guidelines set down by a risk management team, the summary judgement make not have happened. Unfortunately, neither party protected themselves as they could’ve by having the simplest of things, like their own logoed uniforms, a contract, and contracts for patients so sign like disclaimers and waivers.

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 case was based on plaintiff claims that they were engaged in protected activity of investigating potential false claims submitted by the hospital to the government. According to the suit filed, a doctor on site was involved in a kickback agreement with the hospital anesthesiologist, Dr. Brad Barth, the husband of one of the plaintiffs in the case.

The plaintiffs, A. V. Blount, Jr., Walter J. Hughes, Norman N. Jones, Girardeau Alexander, E. C. Noel, III, and F. E. Davis, are medical doctors (practitioners) licensed to practice and practicing medicine in the City of Greensboro, North Carolina.

With regard to Ms. Green’s claims against O’Brien, it is apparent that Ms. Green was O’Brien’s client, and that O’Brien owed Ms. Green a duty. Should this case proceed to trial we do not anticipate that we would argue to a jury that O’Brien did not neglect this duty. Rather, there are serious questions as to whether “the negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the client.” Kendall v. Rogers, 181 Md. 606, 611-12 (1943). Indeed, the estate will have to demonstrate that Ms. Green would have prevailed in proving that one or both health care provider defendants committed medical negligence that caused her to fall into the diabetic coma.

Shortly after the termination, an inventory technician recognized that several instruments were missing from the Medical Center. Id. at 562. Staff of the Medical Center viewed video surveillance and noticed the terminated members were leaving the vicinity with equipment, bags and boxes. Id. The Medical Center then attempted to contact the former employees, with no success. Id. Once this was done, Medical Center security personnel searched the lockers of the previously terminated physicians. Id. The court determined the inception was justified due to: (1) a report from the Medical Center about the physicians searching through operating room trays before leaving; (2) the video surveillance; (3) the missing instruments; and

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

Ms. Petrillo was so traumatized by her pastoral counselor’s conduct that she relocated to Madison, Wisconsin, where she established a new domicile and from where she has no intent to depart in any definite measure of time. The Court should deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss Ms. Petrillo’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Ms. Petrillo has her domicile in Wisconsin and each defendant has its domicile in Alabama. When there is complete diversity among the parties, a federal court may hear their case. 28 U.S.C.A § 1332(a) (West 2011). “Diversity” refers to the parties’ domiciles; if opposing parties are domiciled in different states, there is complete diversity among the parties. Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th

Statute of Limitation – 4 years from the date of the incident giving rise to the action. Fla.

Patient’s arguments: The patient argued that he had only consented to the treatment on the basis of the professional advice that he had been given by the defendant, which indicated that the treatment was reasonably necessary. However, this was in fact a misrepresentation because the treatment was unnecessary meaning that valid consent was not obtained leading to assault and battery of the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the trial judge found that it couldn’t be definitively stated that the dentist was dishonest or fraudulent as opposed to simply incompetent and as such the tort of trespass could not be made out.

A computer check via FCIC/NCIC revealed the defendant to have a suspended Florida driver’s license: