The Medical Board Of Australia And New Zealand

DIAGNOSTIC DATA: White count was 13.4, hemoglobin and hematocrit 15.4 and 45.8, platelets 206, with an 89% shift. Sodium 133, potassium 3.7, chloride 99, bicarb 24, BUN and creatinine are 18 and 1.1, respectively. Glucose 146, albumin 4.3, total bilirubin 1.7. The remainder of the LFTs is within normal limits. Urinalysis reveals trace ketones with 100mg per decilitre protein and a small amount of blood. CT scan was performed revealing evidence of acute appendicitis with pericecal inflammation, as well as, dilatation of the appendix and

ABDOMEN: The lung basis appeared unremarkable. The liver, spleen, gallbladder, adrenals, kidneys and pancreas and abdominal aorta appeared unremarkable. The bowels seen on the study appeared thickened. Dilated appendix seen constant with acute appendicitis. Osseous structures of the abdomen appeared unremarkable. No free air was seen.

The tort law section that falls into this case is negligence. Negligence is made up of three elements which determine negligence and duty of care is owed in this case State of Victoria v Bryar [1970] 44 ALJR 174.

onset with this disease. His primary complaint of lower left quadrant pain, is being felt

HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: This 46-year old gentleman with past medical history significant only for degenerative disease of the bilateral hips, secondary to arthritis presents to the emergency room after having had 3 days of abdominal pain. It initially started 3 days ago and was a generalized vague abdominal complaint. Earlier this morning the pain localized and radiated to the right lower quadrant. He had some nausea without emesis. He was able to tolerate p.o earlier around 6am, but he now

History of Present Illness: The patient is a 27-year-old male complaining of right lower-quadrant abdominal pain, nausea, and

The patient complained of right lower quadrant pain and of feeling faint. Dr. O'Donnel documented a chief complaint, a brief history of present illness, and a systemic review of the gastrointestinal system and respiratory system. Dr. O'Donnel also documented a complete examination of all body systems, which included all required elements. Medical decision making was of moderate complexity.

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

History of Present Illness: The patient is a 27-year-old male complaining of right lower-quadrant abdominal pain, nausea, and

As a result of the events referred to in their particulars of claim the claimant is now represented by Bloomingdale Solicitors to launch to launch a civil action against Friends Health NHS Foundation Trust on 31 August 2010.

Assess: Caroline Morris is a day five post-operative ileostomy patient with a thirty year history of ulcerative colitis. Her vital signs have been stable. She has been experiencing pain which she has rated an eight out of ten however, she refuses further pain medication. She is ready for discharge.

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.

He states he cannot swallow but spits into a rag because of the pain. His

What was the HIH board doing while this saga was going on? What should they have done?

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.