The Treatment Of Psychiatric Injury

The shutdown of state mental hospitals and lack of available financial and institutional resources force mentally ill people to the United States Judicial System for mental health. Every year thousands of people are arrested for various crimes and they are sent to jail. Sixteen percent of these people have some type of mental health problem (Public Broadcasting System , 2001). When we consider that the United States has the largest incarcerated population in the world at 2.2 million, this number is staggering (Anasseril E. Daniel, 2007). This is about 1% of the entire population of the United States. There are many reasons as to why the situation has taken such a bad turn and when the history of the treatment of mental illness is examined one can see how the situation developed into the inhumane disaster it is today.

In her complaint, the Parents allege that the Defendants are liable to her on a theory of Intentional Inflection of Emotional Distress (“IIED”). “IIED claims are ‘rarely viable in a case brought under Maryland law.’” Takacs v. Fiore, 473 F. Supp. 2d 647, 652 (D. Md. 2007) (quoting Robinson v. Cutchin, 140 F. Supp. 2d 488, 494 (D. Md. 2001)). In order for an IIED allegation to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) The conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) The conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; [and] (4) The emotional distress must be severe.” Lasater v. Guttman, 194 Md. App. 431, 448 (2010).

The Plaintiff, Keller, sued the defendant, DeLong. DeLong was driving Kellers car at Tyngsboro, Massachusetts at approximately 11:40p.m. on April 14, 1963, DeLong collided with a utility pole at the side of the highway. The Trial Court ruled that the sole cause of the accident was the fact that the defendant dozed off to sleep and did not awaken in time to avoid collision with the pole. The driver showed no sign he was going to fall asleep. Defendant, Carl DeLong, suddenly and unexpectedly dozed at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Defendant, DeLong, was not found negligent. Vacated; reversed, affirming trial court’s judgment.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress - the Court states that because Texas law places a duty on Briles and McCaw, the Plaintiff 's negligence claim will fill any gaps.

The Woburn case is an example of a complex tort case. A tort case involves any personal injury someone sustains due to the negligence of someone else. The plaintiff is taxed to prove three features: the defendant must have a duty of care for the plaintiff, the defendant breached this duty of care, and general causation. Without general causation, the defendant could have a duty of care and breached this duty of care, but there would not be a tort case only with the association between the defendant’s behavior and the personal injury sustained by the plaintiff.

It is essential to have knowledge of the previous case which was Rogers v. Okin. Rogers became distressed with the forcible consumption of Haldol, an antipsychotic medication, causing to set herself on fire in order to be transferred to a medical hospital. On April 27, 1975, Rogers, along with six other patients who were also medicated against their will, initiated lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed against officials and staff of the May and Austin Units of the BSH. Plaintiffs were all present or were previous mental patients and were all administered with drugs forcefully. In this case, the Plaintiff prevailed.

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

. 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

The first element of Ms. Nordlund’s claim is based on her relationship with the victim, her half-sister, Deanna Sumner. The element specifies that the plaintiff and victim be closely related. The term “closely related” covers relationships such as children, siblings, grandparents, parents, and those who live in the same household. Blanyar v. Pagnotti Enters., 679 A.2d 790, 793 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996). The plaintiff in Blanyar witnessed his cousin drown. The Court ruled against the plaintiff’s claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, factoring in that the relationship was too distant. Id. This was despite the plaintiff and victim having a very close relationship. This ruling does not directly address Ms. Nordlund’s relationship

Ronnie was the primary victim as he was placed in physical danger whilst in the truck and suffered psychiatric harm as a result. For this sole reason, he is owed a duty of care by his employers. The nature of their relationship means . Failure to install a new safety screen equates to the company's failure to meet the standard of care and they are liable for breach. Ronnie's refusal to wear a helmet is an example of negligent contribution and the two requirements of this principle are satisfied: Ronnie did not take proper care for his own safety and said failure was contributory to the damage he suffered. This is similar to the Capps v Miller case of 1989, where the claimant did not fasten his helmet, subsequently suffering from serious head injuries. Contributory negligence operates as a defence for Bricks R Us, however it is only partial to avoid absolution of liability, since the court's primary aim is to compensate the

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.

What do Kate Chopin and Charlotte Perkins Gilman, two authors whose works we have read, have in common? Both female authors suffered from depression during the 1880’s, their experiences with depression are seen in their literary works. After reading about the rest cure in Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper” and learning that Chopin used writing for solace it made me want to learn more about how people with mental illnesses were treated and their conditions in the actual institutions in the 1800’s as well as the leading figures of the asylum reform.

Women who have gone through some form of abuse and psychiatric trauma experienced a great deal of pain. It isn't always easy to deal with but there are coping mechanisms that help them overcome the pain, hurt, and emotionally distressing experiences that come along with abuse and psychiatric trauma. Physical abuse and verbal abuse can hurt a person in such a way that it will influence them to make unconventional life decisions. The female characters such as Antoinette in Jean Rhy's "Wide Sargasso Sea", Nieve Guerra in Wendy Guerra's "Everyone Leaves", and Telumee in Simone Schwarz- Bart's "The Bridge of Beyond",have experienced psychiatric trauma differently. Some of them managed to overcome it and live the rest of their lives with content

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

) First and foremost, in order for us to claim for the psychiatric damage that Adam has suffered under tort law, we will have to prove that Adam is either a primary victim or a secondary victim and Adam is suffered from a recognised psychiatric illness, anxiety and stress will generally not sufficient. Primary victims are those who directly involved in the event and secondary victims are those who are suffered a psychiatric illness when someone they know is killed or injured in an accident. A recognised psychiatric condition is defined as a genuine illness or injury, needed medical evidence and has a long term effect. Adam might claim as a primary victim in this case, because a primary victim has to suffer physical injury or at a risk of physical injury and psychiatric injuries. The liability of causing psychiatric injury depends on foreseeability of physical injury, for example, in the case of Page v Smith where Mr Page suffered no physical injury but a recurrence of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and became unable to work, Smith is liable as he could reasonably foresee that Mr Page suffer physical injury. Adam could claim as a primary victim if Adam is in the zone of physical danger, I firmly believe that Adam was in the zone of danger at that time because he was seated in the row of the seat immediately behind their children and the risk of physical injury of Adam was also foreseeable, therefore, Adam owed a duty of care in relation to psychiatric damage. Besides, the