The Case Of Ricter V. Singlett Memorial Hospital

It was clear negligence when it was so obvious that the toes did not have proper circulation. If the nurses were doing their job by checking on the extremities should have quickly noticed that there were circulation issues. By not reporting this was pure negligence.

In Texas, the therapist owes no duty to warn individuals who are under possible threat, but I strongly believe that there are terrible consequences if under the Texas Constitutions denies the duty to warn. In my personal opinion, the Tarasoff’s Law should be applied to all states because if a patient clearly presents behavioral intentions to hurt an individual, the therapist must inform the possible victim and the law enforcement. I believe that when an individual seeks for help, the therapist might detect signs of threat against others and like the Tarasoff’s case or the Peck case, the individuals states his intentions to damage a person, property or even to third party individuals. The therapist must be allow to “break the patient-client

An important concept that I learned from the HCA 6280 is tort of negligence which was totally a new subject to me. According to Harris (2008), plaintiff must prove four elements of tort which are “duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages” (p. 138) The plaintiff will be compensated only if he can prove that all the four elements of the tort are true to his case. I learned that duty means that physicians are required to provide patients with standard care and based on that responsibility they are required to provide standard care.Organizations have the legal responsibility to only employ staff who prove to have clinical competency. Otherwise, in case of an adverse event the organization or physician will be liable for breach of duty. Causation

In this case, the accident is the proximate cause of Mrs. Smith’s injuries and the medical providers are the intervening cause, as their breach of duty exacerbated Mrs. Smith’s injury to the point of permanent disability and disfigurement.

I selected the article “Duty to Warn and Protect: Not in Texas” for review, as it applies to the state in which I reside. The article cites Texas Health and Safety Codes, based on a 1999 Texas Supreme Court ruling that states counselors do not have a duty to warn or protect. Having a duty to warn and protect is defined as protecting clients or others from perceived harm (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014). An example would be that a client tells their counselor in a confidential session that he is considering stabbing his ex-girlfriend. The duty to warn would mean the counselor should notify authorities and the ex-girlfriend thus breaking confidentiality. The duty to protect would be to admit client to a facility for the client to be assessed for a propensity for violence towards the ex-girlfriend. This became important after a 1969 incident where a counselor, had a client expressed harm towards a girl and the counselor contacted the authorities, yet never contacted the girl, who was subsequently killed by the client a few months later, known as the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California case (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014).

service at all? Is the case criminal negligence - or just a genuine error in

The duty to warn and protect is the result of the Supreme Court case Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California. (Gehring 1982) In this case the courts decided that a psychotherapist having knowledge of the

.S. health laws based on criminal misconduct in health care to the creation of contract laws, holds health care facilities liable to vicarious liabilities and Tort Laws that amount up to Medical Malpractice.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

     If what the person in question did met the requirements of what the standard of care calls for, then there has been no account of negligence. There are four main points that actually make up negligence. There must first be a situation in which the standard of care must be given under the given circumstances. Failing to follow the standard of care begins the case of negligence. After not satisfactorily completing the standard, there is an apparent setup for harm to the patient resulting from this failure to meet the requirements of care. When an injury is inflicted on the patient, that relates to the standard of care being violated, and that seals the case. Those are the four ingredients needed to complete a case of negligence (Cazalas 18).

A medical professional has a particular duty to use reasonable care toward patients since a physician has special training and knowledge that ordinary people do not possess. A doctor has a duty to use the care expected of a reasonable physician with the same specialty acting in a similar community under similar circumstances.

Since we could remember, health care liability cases have existed. Some were unsuccessful and some were prosperous. Now we know that, most of these cases were victorious mainly because the plaintiffs efficaciously proceeded to prove how the healthcare institution involved, or its employees were liable for damages or loss. Their liabilities come in two ways however, such as vicarious and corporate liabilities. The vicarious liability is the form in which, a person is considered responsible for the damages made by his inferior. Meaning in the case of a healthcare institution, the employers are viewed liable for the harmful actions of its employees. The corporate liability

His father did tell the therapist, Goldstein about the idea of his son hurting other and the therapist urge that it is better to have his son hospitalized (Koocher and Spiegel, 2013). However, after some time, the client took out his action and actually killed himself and the person, Ewing who is his former girlfriend’s current boyfriend (Koocher and Spiegel, 2013). Goldstein was then sued by Ewing’s father for not being able to warn their child from the risk (Koocher and Spiegel, 2013). Even when therapist did not get to meet his client and was not informed about the intention of the client to harm others, he was told by the client’s father about his client’s intention (Koocher and Spiegel, 2013). Hence, the court further states that the therapist have the duty to warn the client and also the third parties in order to protect them from any foreseeable danger after communicating with the immediate family member or friends (Koocher and Spiegel,

Negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage to the plaintiff. More elaborate definition of negligence can be “A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behaviour usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one 's previous conduct).”

Negligence is one of the most common issues in the healthcare environment. Negligence in a hospital is caused by many different things and it can be intentional or unintentional. It can be by failing to do your duties appropriately and in a timely manner, by giving the wrong medication, by improperly performing you job, by abandoning a patient, by failing to properly train the healthcare workers, and also by failing to follow safety rules to assure patient safety and care.