Unit 4 Health And Social Care Case Study

The case study of Crowe v. Provost, 374 S. W. 2d. 645 (Tenn. 1963), was a highly-anticipated court case for the 1960’s. The following list pertaining to the example of what went wrong and by whom. The first patient appointment opens a file with the patient’s basic information and any allergies including medication(s). This would typically be done with the receptionist. If this was not the doctor’s first time seeing this patient, then the physician should have checked the chart to see if there were any allergies to anything including medication, such as, Penicillin and Cosa-Terrabon. Referring to the Crowe vs. Provost, the child was then rushed back into the doctor’s office with worsening symptoms, the nurse should have listened to the mother. The nurse, could have instructed the mother to take the worsening child to the nearest Emergency Department. The nurse advising the doctor, “That she thought the child was about the same as when the physician saw him earlier in the day” (Flight, M., 2011, page 5-6) was not a good idea. The doctor could have been brought in for an examination of the ailing patient. The receptionist returning from her lunch should not have been a signal for the nurse to leave for any reason with the patient getting worse. Again, the patient and mother should have been instructed to go to the nearest emergency room. The receptionist should not have been left alone with an ailing patient. Mistakenly, the receptionist calling the doctor first and

See Electcrostim Med. Servs., Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 962 F. Supp. 2d 887, 898-99 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (granting motion to dismiss); Encompass Office Solutions, Inc. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-02487-L, 2012 WL 3030376, *8-*9 (N.D. Tex. July 25, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss); Team Healthcare/Diagnostic Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Tex., No. 3:10-cv-1441-BH, 2012 WL 1617087, *6 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss); Mid-Town Surgical Ctr., LLP v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tex., No. H-11-2086 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2012) (granting motion to dismiss); DAC Surgical Partners, P.A. v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., No. H-11-1355, 2011 WL 3841946, *6 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss);

Ambiguity and lack of regulatory control is echoed in David Powner’s article published in the Lancet Journal: “Clinicians do not always follow an established policy or provide appropriate documentation. Surveys or chart reviews showed that doctors sometimes failed to document specifics of clinical examinations, omitted criteria demanded

Brohawn, supra, 276 Md. at 399. Subsequently, the other party to the altercation filed an action against Brohawn seeking damages for intentional torts and negligence. Id. at 399-400. Transamerica, Brohawn’s insurer, refused to defend Brohawn on the grounds that her coverage contained a policy exclusion whereby Transamerica was not responsible for intentional conduct. Id. at 400. Thereafter, Transamerica initiated a declaratory judgment action, in the same court, seeking to have the court declare that Brohawn’s conduct was intentional, and, therefore, fell within the policy exclusion. Id. at 401. The circuit court dismissed the declaratory judgment action because “the question of coverage would be ‘determined by the jury’s verdict in the tort suits]. . . .” Id. at

In November 1960, Dorrence Darling II, a minor (Plaintiff) was brought in to the Charleston Community Memorial Hospital (Defendant) by his father, after breaking his leg during a football game. The on call Physician, Dr. Alexander (Defendant) tended to Darling in the emergency room. Dr. Alexander began by putting the leg in traction, setting the break, and applied a plaster cast. The next day Darling's toes had become dark, swollen and cold to the touch. Darling was in a great deal of pain and voiced this to the Dr. and attending nursing staff. Dr. Alexander made some adjustments to the cast around the toes to relieve some of the pressure.

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

As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff’s fall from the unsecured wheelchair, Plaintiff’s suffered severe pain and injury to her spine. As a direct and proximate result of

She felt a lack of dignity during many examinations and a loss of control over her birth. Therefore, she was determined to have a physiological vaginal birth and came with a specific birth plan with what she wanted and did not want. Her labour started outside of this plan, her membranes ruptured prior to labour commencing and due to being under the community team, she presented to hospital for core staff to confirm this. She was then sent home and reappeared in early labour, Lisa then proceeded to go home again and come back which is when I took over her care. She was still in early labour, but did not want to remain at home and due to her almost being within the time frame of commencing antibiotics for PROM, inaddition to being a VBAC and requiring additional fetal monitoring once in established labour in view of scar rupture, the charge decided she could remain an inpatient.

Blendon, R. DesRoches, C. Brodie, M., Benson, J. Rosen, A., & Schneider, A. (2002). Views of practicing physicians and the public on medical errors. New England Journal of Medicine. 347, 1933-1940.

Here, Ms. Ocampo was mistaken as to the date, type and form of response commanded by the various papers delivered to her daughters nurse during an overwhelming hectic, emotionally and physically draining period of illness for her infant daughter. Ms. Ocampo mistake was compounded by her neglect to read the papers carefully, and developed a faulty understanding of the facts that lead her to erroneous believe that she needed to show up to the court date set for the case management conference in order to contest the allegations. The default was not entered against Ms. Ocampo because she agreed with the allegations or desired that to be the process by which the matter should be resolved, indeed Ms. Ocampo contests the allegation of the complaint and desires to present the facts supporting her defense. The default here occurred because Ms. Ocampo failed to file a proper written and timely response due to her misapprehension of the facts and an erroneous belief resulted in the taking of the default against her in this matter, a result she did not desire and did not understand she would suffered based upon her erroneous conviction.

1. A pregnant woman lacked standing to sue over a law’s potential unconstitutionally since the law applied to medical practice (and not patients) (Dawn Stacey M.Ed, n.d.)

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.

From the original case which established the duty of care towards customers, it extended to medical professionals including any other line of professional which is recognised as the Bolam test. The test is derived from the case of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) . In Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, the test is originally used to determine medical negligence. Mr. Bolam, a voluntary

List A – A critical analysis of diagnostic tests performed and the way in which their results influence management

To determine the standard of care in cases of concerning issues of medical diagnosis and treatment, Malaysian judges have adopted the English common law principle which is the Bolam test since 1960s. The Bolam test got its name from the instance court case which is Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee.[[1975] 2 ALL ER 118] In this case, the plaintiff, John Hector Bolam, is a salesman, who was suffering from the mental illness of the depressive type. He was admitted in the Friem Hospital to undergo electro convulsive therapy as treatment. The effects of treatment such that will cause convulsion in the nature of a fit. Bolam was given an initial shock for the purpose of damping the amplitude of the jerking movements in his body where no relaxant drugs were given to him. The plaintiff suffered from a serious fractures of the pelvis on each side.[ http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/BOLAMV_1%20DOC.pdf] The plaintiff argued that the doctor neither warned him regarding the risk involved and had breached his duty by not providing relaxant drug prior to