Undeniable Care: The Patrick Fare Case

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

-Goodvalue did not exercise reasonable care in response to known attacks on the premises (8 reported attacks in the 18 months before the incident involving Mr

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 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

Once at Lowell Court, Kevonah acted out at and restrained by court staff and transported to Lowell General Hospital, by ambulance, and held on a Section 12. Kevonah remained in restraints and under sedation. While at Lowell General Hospital, nursing staff and security informed me Kevonah was exit seeking, difficult to re-direct, argumentative, and required both physical and chemical restraints.

Hendrickson. In this case Mr. Kingsley was a pretrial detainee at the Monroe County Jail in 2010 when he was asked by an officer to remove a piece of paper concealing the overhead light in his cell and he refused to do so. After being asked by a sergeant Hendrickson a few more time and each time refusing, a lieutenant had his men remove it and more Mr. Kingsley to another cell. On the way to the new cell he didn’t act in the way the guards wanted him to so the yanked him to his feet and hit them on the frame of the bed so bad that he was unable to walk. Once in the cell Mr. Kingsley refused the officers attempt to have the cuffs taking off so Hendrickson“his knee in Kingsley's back and Kingsley yelled at him. Kingsley also claimed that Hendrickson smashed his head into the concrete bunk. After further verbal exchange, another officer applied a taser to Kingsley's back” (“ Kingsley v. Hendrickson”). Mr Kingsley sued Hendrickson and the other jail members involved saying what they did violated his due process rights given to him by the 14th Amendment. He lost the first time but he appealed saying that the jury was given bad instruction on how to judge if the force was excessive or not and what the intent was the U. S. Court of Appeals agreed with him. Mr. Kingsley narrowly won his case with a 5-4 vote in his favor. The Supreme Court said: “The Court held that,

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.

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

A civil suit is commonly derived from a private party or individual, who alleges damages from duty of care. Once a civil case begins, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove, with evidence, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Conversely, the defendant must prove their affirmative defense against documented allegations. The Oliver versus Brock case proves the importance of supporting evidence as opposed to hearsay statements, to prove the truth of the matter. In the Oliver versus Brock case, Cathy (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Bryan Whitfield Memorial Hospital of Demopolis and the treating physicians Dr. F.S. Whitfield, Dr. Paul Ketcham and Dr. E.C. Brock (Defendant) for negligence of care. Analyzing the facts in

She was transferred via ambulance to Ardmore Acres. Once the patient arrived at Ardmore Acres, she was refused permission to use the telephone. However, days later, Mrs. Stowers located an unlocked telephone, and was able to contact her relatives. This lead to her release from Ardmore Acres due to a court order obtained from her relatives that she contacted. Mrs. Stowers filed suit against Dr. Wolodzko (Dr. Smyk and Ardmore Acres were dismissed from the suit). Dr. Wolodzko was found guilty of three torts against Mrs. Stowers, which included false imprisonment, assault, and battery (Stowers, 1971). In my opinion, I believe the decisions from this case were correctly ruled, especially the tort of battery.

6. Holding: As stated in the case: “one who, without a privilege to do so, by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another, with bodily harm resulting from such distress, is subject to liability for such emotional distress and bodily harm even though he has committed no heretofore recognized common law tort.”

My role as Allen Brookson is significant in the case of Brookson v. Carter because I was the first to be wrongfully attacked by Wendell Carter. My role will help to prove that Carter is guilty for various reasons, and why Allen Brookson and Fred Brookson should be offered compensations for both severe physical and posttraumatic stress. The physical injuries sustained were taken to the hospital that resulted in a detrimental medical expense and traumatic stress such has weight loss, chronic anxiety, and insomnia. Essentially, the Brooksons should win this case because Carter committed a Class B misdemeanor by illegally carrying a knife that can injury someone, and we will, too, because of Assault of the third degree, Carter committed assault

The corrections officers at the Attica Correctional Facility charged Haywood with three misbehavior reports and found guilty of all three. Haywood believed that for two of those three charges, the correctional officer (Drown) had not given him (Haywood) a fair and impartial hearing and that Drown’s determination was based on insufficient evidence, and that Drown had intended to violate Haywood’s First Amendment rights. Haywood demanded punitive damages and attorney’s fees; he also demanded that the New York State Department of Correctional Services remove the misbehavior report from his record; Haywood was relying on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Haywood also claimed that corrections officers cause a minor injury to his pinkie finger and that they conspired to fabricate facts in the misbehavior reports. Haywood also claimed that corrections officers tampered with his urinalysis test which

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

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.