Yolanda Pinnels Case Study

An experienced nurse Julie Thao was taking care of 16-yeas old Jasmine Gant who was about t give a birth. Thao is accused of making a mistake that had terrible and tragic result on the life of a pregnant teenage, unborn child, Gant’s family, health care, and Thao’s life. Thao mistakenly gave Gant an epidural anesthetic intravenously instead of an IV antibiotic for a strep infection. Within minutes of receiving the epidural IV, Gant suffered seizures and died. Her child, a boy, was delivered by emergency Caesarean section and survived. So what caused this tragedy to happen? According to investigation, Thao improperly removed the epidural bag from a locked storage system without authorization, she did not scan the bar code, which would have told

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).

4. A nurse in an ambulatory setting administers a prescribed antibiotic. The “five rights” of medication administration are observed. However, the patient, who has no known allergies, experiences an anaphylactic reaction. The patient is skillfully resuscitated and is promptly transported to the nearest hospital. Unfortunately, he suffers permanent hypoxic brain damage and severe disability. The family sues the clinic, the physician, and the

Yolanda Valentin a 21-year-old prisoner, born as Daniel Valentine, looks and sounds much like a woman if it wasn’t for her sex assignment. After being placed in a cell with two male inmates, Valentin was repeatedly abused. She informed correctional officers of the continued, brutal sexual violence her cellmate was putting her through. The prison system did not respond to her. After all, from their point of view Valentin should have opted for solitary confinement to protect herself from the general population of male inmates. In solitary she would have sat quietly, by herself, for 24 hours in a cell made explicitly for violent prisoners. Valentin, a transsexual inmate in transition, asks herself constantly: “A lot of times I wake up, and I look around at my surroundings, and I see all these men. I think, ‘What am I doing here?’”(Baus).

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

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

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

The issue in the case, Niles v. City of San Rafael, was negligence. Kelly Niles did not receive prompt and proper care from a team of health professionals when he was taken to the emergency department to get examined. The nurse “obtained a history of the injury and took Kelly’s pulse and blood pressure. The nurse was correct in taking Kelly’s vital signs, but it is also her duty to examine him thoroughly and monitor his vital signs during his complete stay. There was also an issue in his skull x-rays. They were analyzed, but soft tissue swelling was not noted until later on. That should

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.

With regard to Ms. Green’s claims against O’Brien, it is apparent that Ms. Green was O’Brien’s client, and that O’Brien owed Ms. Green a duty. Should this case proceed to trial we do not anticipate that we would argue to a jury that O’Brien did not neglect this duty. Rather, there are serious questions as to whether “the negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the client.” Kendall v. Rogers, 181 Md. 606, 611-12 (1943). Indeed, the estate will have to demonstrate that Ms. Green would have prevailed in proving that one or both health care provider defendants committed medical negligence that caused her to fall into the diabetic coma.

al., 2003). We do not have enough information about this case to know whether there was anything the hospitals in question could have reasonably done different.

The hospital and physician were both found to be negligent. Elements of negligence are (injuryclaimcoach, 2017):

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

While at the hospital, surgery is performed; however, the victim dies on the operating table. It is later discovered the hospital staff gave the patient medication during the procedure in which the victim was allergic to, but was not the cause of death. The cause of death was determined to be the severed artery and loss of blood. Even though the injuries were life threatening and the victim died anyway, the defendant could argue the hospital staff was the proximate cause of the victim’s death by giving them the medication they are allergic to. This should not release the defendant from a murder charge since the victim died from injuries they sustained from the stabbing. With the artery being severed, there was no hope for the victim. The medication given to the patient, while negligent in the dose administration, did not cause the death of the

Ms. Almanza claimed she researched and provided the claimant’s entire personnel file for this investigation and stated she was not aware of any industrial-related injuries associated with the claimants said injuries, by noting that no treating physicians ever provided any causation or the implied injuries. She provided proof with the claimant’s personnel file taken into as evidence by stating there was no medical evidence, doctors note or request of modified work duties to suggest any medical