Treatment Of The Plaintiff In Dr. Fichtel's Case

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.

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

The motivational approach Mr. Ferrell is using is intrinsic reward. Because of the personal satisfaction, he has. He follows the rules of Right-Way super market which lead him to believe he is making an significant contribution to this organization (pg.296). Which he seems to think means he does not need to listen to his employees. Mr. Ferrell exhibits elements of scientific management. He sees Amy as more of a machine than a human being there to work not to suggest concepts for a business, he’s worked at longer. Whereas, I would use extrinsic rewards as a motivation. This ensures that an employee knows they are appreciated it can be as simple as telling them what a good job or in this case listening to an employee’s ideas.

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

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.

In the film, “A Civil Action,” the attorney on the side of the plaintiff's, Jan Schlichtmann, is defending the families, including the Andersons, who lost their beloved children to Leukemia. In the court case, “Anderson and all vs. Beatrice foods and Grace,” the plaintiff’s believed the contaminated drinking water from the city wells was the root cause of the leukemia. At first, Mr. Schlichtmann did not want to take the case, stating there was no value to it. He even stated, “The odds of a plaintiff’s lawyer winning in civil court are two to one against,” (1). Nonetheless, he later discovered the true value the case withheld. In the case, Jan simply wanted compensation for the victims of the contaminated drinking water. Grace and Beatrice,

Five negative developments have occurred since the removal of prayer from public school. Academic achievement has plunged (including SAT scores). There has been an increased rate of out-of-wedlock births, leaving single mothers to struggle to survive (Starr, 2014). Illegal drug use has gone rampant. The amount of juvenile crime has skyrocketed. Lastly, behavior in school has drastically deteriorated. William Jeynes, a professor at California State College, says “ so we need to realize that these actions do have consequences” (Starr, 2014). These negative developments have occurred since the Engle v. Vitale case of 1962.

In the article “Despite Counsel, Victim Is Hindered by tort laws.” The author Becca Aaronson, explains that sometimes tort laws may not feel fair. Connie Spears is just an ordinary woman who went to the Emergency because she felt some pain in her legs which she told the hospital she is known to have blood clots but, after being checked by the doctors they sent her home with a minor diagnoses. Just a short few days later she ended up in a different hospital with serious illness that caused her to loose both of her legs. She then filed a medical malpractice law suit but, she had to produce adequate expert reports within 120 days of filing their cases or she will be ordered to pay the defendants court fees. Connie Spears argues that

Redding stated that she saw the claimant report to work pain-free without wearing any orthopedic wrist-guards or braces on her right wrist. That same afternoon, an employee informed her that the claimant was inside one of the exam rooms with Mr. Luis Taylor, a Physical Therapist. She was informed the claimant was being treated for a right wrist injury that may have occurred outside of work, as Mr. Taylor conducting a courtesy exam for the claimant since she was an employee. Ms. Redding could not recall whom the employee has who informed her about Mr. Taylor NIL the

Decide which witnesses could support the prosecution’s case and which witnesses would support the defense’s case. How does Search and Seizure relate to the B.I.G. case?

In the film, A Civil Action, Trial Procedure was shown throughout the entire movie. There are many steps that need to be completed before a verdict and judgment can be reached. These steps are the pleadings, methods of discovery, pretrial hearings, jury selection, opening statements, introduction of evidence, cross examinations, closing arguments, instructions to the jury, and the verdict and judgment. The case in this movie was actually called Anderson v. Cryovac. The plaintiffs are the Anderson family, the Gamache family, the Kane family, the Robbins family, the Toomey family, and the Zona family. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are Jan Schlichtmann, Joe Mulligan, Anthony Roisman, Charlie Nesson, and Kevin Conway. The two co- defendants are

Plaintiff claims false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff states he was arrested for criminal possession of marijuana however no marijuana was recovered. PO Hernandez, PO Bonet, and PO Heredia were members of the anti-crime in PSA 6. Officers observed via Viper camera plaintiff and two other apprehended individuals smoking marijuana in the park behind a housing project. Officers approached plaintiff and two individuals and conducted a stop and frisk. Officers did not recover any contraband or marijuana was recovered. Plaintiff and the two individuals were transported to the precinct where a bag of marijuana was recovered during a search at the precinct. Officers could not determine ownership of the marijuana therefore all three were

A: Ganglion Cyst Ruled as Personal and TM verbalizes understanding this is a personal issue not a work related injury.

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.

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.