The Oliver Versus Brock Case

Aldina, thank you for the effort in describing the incident that occurred at Bright Road, and the implications this had for Bright Road and Dr. Fredericks. There were a few good points that you made when trying to support your report, first, you were able to clarify that Mr. Davis had made changes to his consent form prior to the treatment. Then, that Dr. Fredericks agreed that he relied on what he viewed as the patient’s verbal consent to proceed with the procedure, and that he probably did not look at the written consent before the surgery. You were able to identify that this procedure caused long-term harm to Mr. Davis, because he would have to use additional medication that can put him in danger, as well as the potential problem with the

Shockley’s oral report, Mr. Wood related the occurrence to Dee Showalter, our client Human Resources Director, who in turn reported the matter to Mary Miller, our client’s Chief of Living and Learning. Ms. Showalter also contacted our client’s nurse, Janice Young, and requested that she perform a skin assessment on Allison and also arrange for a physician to examine her per Ms. Miller’s request. (We have requested a copy of Ms. Young’s skin assessment, though the portion of the file that our client provided does not include a skin assessment that was ordered at that time and our client has indicated that it does not have a record of a skin assessment performed on or shortly after September 9, 2013. However, the materials provided include an assessment that our client completed before Allison’s home visit on September 8. That assessment reveals no abnormal findings, but it is not definitive as to whether the condition of Allison’s buttocks or rectum was accessed as part the

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).

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 facts of this case are that Dr. Guiles who is self-conscious of his prostate cancer diagnosis is treated horrendously when he finally decides to have surgery ( Buchbinder, Shanks & Buchbinder, 2014). Considering that Dr. Guiles is already sensitive about his condition, his unbearable symptoms are not helping matters (Buchbinder et al, 2014). Upon arrival at the hospital, he is treated subpar. The admitting clerk is rude and unbecoming to a patient who isn’t feeling well and who is embarrassed about his sickness (Buchbinder et al., 2014). To make matters worse, he has to find his own way up to the floor by walking, which causes him to be even later in checking in because of the need to stop frequently to urinate as well as having difficulty in walking (Buchbinder et al., 2014). Once he arrives on the floor, the charge nurse is not welcoming and unprofessional (Buchbinder et al., 2014). After figuring out what to do with the paperwork; and the nurse aide delivers Dr. Guiles to his room, the nurse aide does not offer to help settle him in (Buchbinder et al., 2014). Therefore, Dr. Guiles is faced with battling obnoxious family members who are on his bed and to make matters worse someone is in the bathroom which doesn’t help his need of having to frequently urinate (Buchbinder et al., 2014). When the issues are brought up to the charge nurse, the charge nurse accuses Dr. Guiles of wanting preferential treatment

This case involves Mr. Horton, his wife, and his mother in law. While Mr. Horton was a patient at Niagara fall memorial medical center the nurses noted in his medical records that he was dizzy, confused and unable to focus. Horton was in a two story private room with a window

M was taking a look at his leg that was injured but seemed to be healing. All was thought to be well until one office visit the doctor went across the hall to check on another patient who seemed to have an infected leg. The doctor left the door open where confidentiality here was obviously not being taking into consideration for the patient he was seeing as well as others who were able to hear them. Since the door was open, his parents noticed that he did not change his gloves while entering that other room and came back to check on their son with no gloves on. Dr. M was concerned about Jacobs leg and told him to come back the following week while treating it with antibiotics. The following week he comes back only to see that he has developed osteomyelitis. This was the same infection that the other patient developed while under the care of his supervision. Jacobs delay in his recover cost him the opportunity to play football and a college scholarship. Jacobs’s parents then resorted to suing Dr. M because of his negligence and lack of medical

1. During the interview, the interviewer (Dr. Noonan) was able to control the session even when the client was challenging her. Dr. Noonan continued to repeat the question "How can I help you?" when the client avoided answering Dr. Noonan about why she was seeking services from her. The interviewer also maintained patient confidentiality when the client mentioned a previous coworker that had also seen Dr. Noonan. Dr. Noonan did not give any information to the client about this previous patient and she did not give any indication that she had been this coworker's doctor in the first place.

The event that essentially precipitated the criminal charges against Ann Mitchell and Vicki Galle was when they reported the unsafe medical practices of Dr. Ronaldo Arafiles. They stood up for many of Dr. Rolando Arafiles patients and their rights. They felt as if Dr. Arafiles was not providing standard care for his patients. After they filed an anonymous complaint to the Texas Medical Board (TMB), Winkler County Sherrif Robert Roberts requested copies of the confidential complaints and notified Dr. Arafiles. Following this action, the sheriff and Dr. Arafiles a attempted to retaliate against the two nurses (Sack, K). After reviewing the outcome of the case, the nurses were both impacted negatively. They will probably never be hired into the

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.

relationship with the doctor has been established. In the case Hall v. Hilbun there was a

The Department of Human Resources received a report on Ms. Sue Salter on 9/17/14 alleging Ms. Salter a paraplegic who is paralyzed on her left side was living in a home with no water, power, and had an inadequate caregiver. During investigation, utilities were reconnected and Hospice service provided. Hospice stated Ms. Salter was losing notable weight and found lying in urine during visits. Due to this, several bedsores increased and the doctor ordered a catheter and low air mattress. Ms. Harville, the caregiver was educated on wound care numerous times and demonstrated a working knowledge but choose not to administer wound care.

The Plaintiffs felt that since the hospital was licensed and accredited that they should be held responsible for their employees and their actions. It states in the regulations that any infraction of the bylaws imposes liability for the injury. At any time if Dr. Alexander had questions or concerns he could have reached out to an expert in this field to consult

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.