The Morris V. Childress Case

Is this a case when the physician should be called to the telephone because of the threat of an impending suit?

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).

The case involving Perin v. Hayne seeks to determine if the defendant Dr. Robert Hayne, was in any way negligent when he performed a surgical procedure on the plaintiff Ilene Perin, described as a cervical fusion. This particular procedure sought to alleviate pressure, numbness, weakness and pain in the plaintiff’s back. As a result of this procedure, the plaintiff was left with vocal cord damage that severely diminished her ability to speak above a whisper. This is supported by the reading, “but plaintiff alleged she suffered paralysis of a vocal cord because of injury to the right recurrent laryngeal nerve during surgery” (Showalter, 2017, pg.171). The plaintiff, Ilene Perin, filed suit against the defendant Dr. Hayne, under the guise of res ipsa loquitur, specific negligence, battery and or trespass and breach of express warranty. Applicable law and evidence must be applied in this case to determine if there was a considerable difference between the consented surgical procedure and the surgery that was actually done.

The Perin v. Hayne case involves malpractice in which the plaintiff, Perin sought damages on four theories specific negligence, res ipsa loquitur, breach of express warranty and battery. The surgery was successful at eliminating pain, however as a result the plaintiff suffered vocal cord paralysis. I believe that due care was shown because Dr. Hayne, the defendant, performed the surgery exactly the same way any other physician would under the same condition. Also, informed consent was exercised and there was no way to predict or prevent such occurrence. Dr. Hayne followed the standard of care and did not sway from it. There is no negligence because there was no evidence that the nerve was severed during surgery. The court found that

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

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

Although Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth recognized that the constitutional protection against unjustified state intrusion into the process of deciding whether or not to bear a child extends to pregnant minors, minors’ abortion rights have been circumscribed by parental notification and consent requirements. Early Supreme Court precedent like Danforth and Bellotti v. Baird justified circumscribing minors’ abortion rights in this way by appealing to the particular vulnerability of children, the importance of the parent-child relationship, and—most notably, for the purposes of this paper—children’s immaturity of judgment. In those early cases, the court provided little to no empirical support for the broad claim that

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.

In the case Obergefell v. Hodges, the sixth Circuit recognized that banning same-sex marriage did not violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. James Obergefell and John Arthur James, who were legally married in Maryland in 2013, filed a lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio for charging the state’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates on July 19, 2013, and the case was assigned to Judge Timothy S. Black. On July 22, 2013, Judge Black agreed a temporary restraining order that required the state to recognize the marriage of Mr. Obergefell and Mr. Arthur on Mr. Arthur’s death certificate. In addition, on September 26, 2013, the plaintiffs

FACTS. Darling went to the emergency after he injured his leg during a football game. Dr. Alexander was the only physician in the emergency room that day and he had not treated a severe leg injury for 3 years. After an X-ray revealed that the tibia and fibula was broken the physician set the leg and applied a cast. Not to long after the placement of the cast, Darling complained of continuous pain. Dr. Alexander never called in a specialist. The patient was eventually transferred to another hospital, but eventually his leg was amputated. Darling sued Dr. Alexander and Charleston Community Memorial Hospital for negligence. Dr. Alexander settled out of court for $40,000. The courts ruled

malpractice and negligence. The Darling's (Plaintiff) felt that the hospital, nursing staff and emergency room doctor all played an important part in the Plaintiff losing his leg due to neglect.

Clarence Thomas is second colored male justice to serve in the Supreme Court. I wanted to write about Clarence Thomas because, i was fascinated about his quite streak, how he overcomes racial barriers and his decision in ruling the cases he came upon.

On June 26, 2003, a Supreme Court decision reserved a Texas law preventing consensual, special sexual activity between lesbians and guys. The Court ruled, in Lawrence v Texas. The court mentioned the essential right to confidentiality, and also the right of lesbians and gays have enjoy equal protection on the law. The opinion also reserved the disreputable 1986 resolution in the case of Hardwick v Bowers that the court had upheld a like Georgia homosexualism statute.

Because Dr. Fichtel has not treated the Plaintiff in seven years, he is not in a position to give an opinion as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries. Prior to him giving an opinion as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s cervical spine injuries, he would have to examine her, which he has not.

At trial court, the judge deliberated that Dr. Scott was negligent for failing to show that the growth might not have been benign. The judge ruled the defendant was a breach of duty.