Substantially Likely Factor Essay

The first expert witness represented the Commonwealth of Virginia and is a licensed clinical psychologist. Dr. Ronald M. Boggio’s testimony targeted information from a personal interview with the defendant, he also rendered psychological tests to Mr. Allen to assist in his testimony. When reading the case, it appeared that Dr. Boggio’s had been Mr. Allen’s psychologist is the past or may still be currently. It wasn’t very clear, regardless, he had broad knowledge and experience with the defendant Mr. Allen which leaves his testimony tainted in a sense. The question remains, was his actions ethical or not.

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina entered judgements for defendants, and the patients appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Court affirmed. Certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held that: (1) urine tests were “searches” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) the reporting of positive test results to police were unreasonable searches without patients consent, in view of the policy’s law enforcement purpose. Reversed and remanded. – STEVENS, J., joined by O’CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ” (Samaha,

The doctor, however, was not given enough time to properly study Perry. He then is called to testify in court about if Perry is truly mentally ill which he answers very eloquently, “Answer yes or no, do you have an opinion?” “No.” ... But had Dr. Jones been permitted to discourse on the cause of his indecision…” (Capote 296).

. The husband of the plaintiff file a petition to the court that his wife[plaintiff] is mentally ill and needs to have a court order directing the admission of her to the mental health hospital. The petition initiated by plaintiff’s husband is the order of the Wayne County probate court, and it is also appropriately certified by Doctors Wolodzko, who after appearing in her house and introducing himself as a doctor , and have a conversation with her in person that day and another day in telephone, determine that she is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and Smyk. The court gave the order and the Plaintiff was taken by ambulance from her home to a private psychiatric

Rule: ‘“While in some of the cases cited and relied upon by the Commonwealth lesser amounts of drugs were in issue, there was evidence in addition to the drugs themselves which was susceptible of an inference of the intent to distribute and which was inconsistent with the notion of personal use.’ Commonwealth v. Wooden, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 417, 423–424, 433 N.E.2d 1234 (1982).” Com. v. Ahart, 63 Mass.App.Ct. 413 (2005)

Kinast gained Christian Berry as a patient in 2007. He later on prescribed Christian with an antidepressant drug called Paxil. This drug is associated to suicidal thoughts and hostile behavior, predominantly in teenagers and young adults. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) encouraged that a warning label be placed on the drug informing users that this drug must be used but paired with the clinical treatment. There should be close observation on patients who take this drug (Botos, 2013). Claims were made that the doctor and the Neurocare Center were negligent “by failing to properly evaluate, diagnose, and treat the patients’ neurological condition. The family also included affidavits from two other medical professionals backing up their claim. Dr. Kinast’s lawyers denied any liability and requested a jury hear the case. The court released an order stating that all required court cost deposits must be paid within five days of the demand. The demand of a jury by one party however does not validate a jury demand unless the costs have been paid, which is required by the order (Botos, 2013). Motions were filed and facts were gathered from both sides, while the $200 jury court costs still went unpaid. After a period of time, Berry’s lawyers asked Judge Forchione to strike the demand because of nonpayment. The next day, the lawyers representing Kinast paid the money to the court, although they were a day too late (Botos, 2013). The judge ruled that the missed the

Facts: Shepard, defendant, was charged and convicted of the murdering his wife. Prosecution introduced statement Shepard’s wife made to the nurse as evidences during the trial. Shepard’s wife told her nurse stating that her husband had poisoned her. She also asked the nurse to find the whiskey bottle from defendant’s closet and perform the poison test which she had drunk from. The prosecution introduced the wife’s conversation based on the state of mind exception and dying declaration exception under the hearsay rule. Shepard appeared.

Pete’s Thriftway and its employees are required to stock and dispense “morning after” pills which are against the family’s moral code. As a part of a complete argument, the family states that according to the Due Process Clause of the Constitution the pharmacy should be able to decline dispensing the drugs and refer the patients to another pharmacy.

One court found that New York’s mandatory generic drug law was conclusive proof that the plaintiff received a generic drug because the pharmacist had no choice, but to fill the prescription with generic drugs. Zandi v. Wyeth, No. A08-1455, 2009 WL 2151141, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. July 21, 2009). In contrast, a different court found that West Virginia’s generic drug law was not conclusive evidence because it merely allowed a pharmacist to fill a prescription with a generic version of a drug. Keffer v. Wyeth, No. CIV.A. 2:04-0692, 2011 WL 1838966, at *3-4 (S.D.W. Va. May 13, 2011).

The trial court committed an abuse of discretion by admitting the testimony of Dr. Dalitsch. The case of Catherine Donohue v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission is subject to the standards set forth in Frye v. United States. The seminal case in Illinois law clarifying which cases the Frye standard is applicable is Zachary Donaldson et al. v. Central Illinois Public Service Company et al., 2002 IL 89679. This case established that Frye standards are applicable in medical diagnoses, and that the methodology upon which a medical diagnosis is made must have acquired general acceptance in the relevant scientific field. Zachary Donaldson et al. v. Central Illinois Public Service Company et al. 2002 IL 89679 ¶ 5. The testimony of Dr. Dalitsch

Referring to your previous comments “At step two, you consider whether the individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the alleged symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence.” However, there is no objective evidence other than the one episode during the consultative psychological assessment.

Were we to interpret [§1163.57] otherwise, the result would be to deny payment for medical treatment which the parties agree was necessary in an instance where the propriety of the initial discharge is not even questioned. We believe that that result would not be one which was within the intendment of the legislature.

Edmunds defense attorney attempted a plea of insanity during the trial claiming that he was not responsible for the crimes committed, however, prosecutor Dr. Joel Fort, undermined the public attorney’s attempt for a plea of insanity, stating that Edmund was not a paranoid schizophrenic, but obtained an extreme obsession with sex, violence and the craving for attention.

Research regulations were greatly needed due to the techniques that were used back in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries on individuals with psychological disorders. In our reading this week, we find that if a person had been diagnosed with schizophrenia that they were subjected to different techniques that could have made their disorder much harder to manage (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2013). One of the ways that they approached the disorder was by giving the patient doses of insulin until they were comatose and then placed in lukewarm bath water. It was between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries that researchers were starting to view these disorders differently. The world of science relied more on models to give them the needed information about the patient's medical and psychological issues which helped them to be more productive in the patient's recovery plan. We have learned that life situations can lead to serious health issues and also fear and anxiety. If this is the case, then the earlier techniques that were being used on schizophrenia patients were probably not helping them, but more than likely making their conditions much worse. I believe that these type of actions that were taking place in the 1940’s were not just ethically wrong but also morally since the individuals conducting the procedures were unaware of the conditions that these patients had to deal with daily.

I do not allow the evidence to be presented to the jury the defendant caused his state of paranoid schizophrenia by abusing cocaine and methamphetamine. As judge, I cannot make any decision because he has mental illness. Thus, we should put him in hospital for treatment. In this situation, I will defend of him because when he committed this crime, he consider abnormal person. Another thing is that the government must make series rules of using the cocaine or other drugs because they cause many diseases either mental or physical diseases.