Robbin Reeves Case

Aldina, thank you for the effort in describing the incident that occurred at Bright Road, and the implications this had for Bright Road and Dr. Fredericks. There were a few good points that you made when trying to support your report, first, you were able to clarify that Mr. Davis had made changes to his consent form prior to the treatment. Then, that Dr. Fredericks agreed that he relied on what he viewed as the patient’s verbal consent to proceed with the procedure, and that he probably did not look at the written consent before the surgery. You were able to identify that this procedure caused long-term harm to Mr. Davis, because he would have to use additional medication that can put him in danger, as well as the potential problem with the

Kim Tutt, is a survivor of a very serious malpractice case. At the time of the event, she was only 32 years old and completely healthy with two 12-year-old sons. After going to the dentist for x-rays, she was told that she had jaw cancer and was given only 3-6 months to live. But, she could add another 3 months to her life, if they removed the left side of her chin all the way up to her ear and use her fibula, from her leg, as a replacement. Out of desperation she went ahead with the aggressive surgery. About a month after the completion of the surgery, she was contacted and notified that the specimen which tested positive for cancer was a result of cross-contamination in the lab and she actually did not have cancer. Now she will live

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).

Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to

This application paper provides a summary of Professional Liability for a Paramedic and EMS personnel in general. We forget (omissions) to perform a needed task or skill and we make mistakes or professional errors for whatever reason when performing our duty in the name of doing no harm. The incident (the liable act) may be minor and reversible; on the other hand it might just be hell’s payday with lawsuits and court dates. A professional liability can cause severe injury to a patient, both patient and care provider and might also include a civilian or two in the mix. Professional Liability can lead to

For decades doctors have been revered, respected, and regarded as “saviors,” but what medical practitioners and health officials do not reveal is that there are some doctors that are unlawfully practicing medicine, and nothing is being done to stop them. Medical malpractice is the illegal or improper practice of medicine. Unfortunately, this is far too common. The people that are victims of malpractice often get no compensation for the problems a physician has created. Although doctors are trusted individuals and have a right to provide medical advice, perform surgeries, and prescribe medicine, patients should also be able to have more control and security in their medical dealings through new laws and regulations.

Medical malpractice, the negligence of a health professional in diagnosing, treating, and or caring for a patient, is a specific tort law under the negligence torts. In the medical field, the tort reform has affected many people including doctors, lawyers, insurance company owners and workers, patients, and including other citizens. While large corporations, doctors, and other defendants are benefitting from caps on damages, that is limiting the amount of money that can be granted in court, plaintiffs, lawyers, and citizens are affected differently. Doctor Sage stated in an interview that he has, “never felt that caps on damages had a major effect on patients one way or the other” (“Could Malpractice”). This remark makes those injured question about

The last element is damages. “Damages are proven when it is determined the injury was a result of the practitioner's actions. The intent of awarding damages is to make the plaintiff whole, meaning as if the negligence never occurred” (Walker, 2011, para. 15). Damages are usually paid in the form of money, but I do not think any amount of money will ever make this patient feel whole or that the negligence never occurred.

Breach of Duty: if a doctor performs surgery on the wrong patient, they breached their duty by failing to protect the patient.

This proceeding before a Medical Review Panel, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. §§ 40:1299.41, et seq., is brought by Jimmy Martinez against multiple health care providers, including Dr. Mark Kappelman, a qualified health care provider entitled to have the claim filed against him reviewed by this Panel. The claims made against Dr. Kappelman are mere allegations without support and proof. In a medical malpractice case the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that Dr. Mark Kappelman’s actions in this matter fell below the standard of care required of similar health care providers. The claimant also bears the burden of proving whether any such alleged act or acts of negligence caused any injuries. It is the duty of the

In April 2012, Mr. Hammett’s death was ruled to be human errors that individually would have been unlikely to harm him but proved collectively to be fatal. Mr. Hammett surgery was at at private hospital that did not have any after hours medical cover. During the procedure his oxygen saturation levels were almost perfect, maintaining it at 99%. Somehow during or after being transferred to Post Anaesthetic Care Unit (PACU) his oxygen saturation levels fell to 64%. The anaesthetist assumed that it was caused by an obstructed airway and discharged the patient to the ward; he did not look for anything further to be wrong with the patient. Mr. Hammett complained continously to the RN of high levels of pain; the RN ignored him and referred to him as a “wimp” when switching shifts. Although Mr. Hammett was on a Gemstar pump, which recorded him pressing

Further, Professor Baker at the University of Pennsylvania posited that we have the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. In addition, reforms actually make it more difficult for victims to prove their cases. Furthermore, due to the cap on financial awards, most of the time, it costs victims a large sum of money to pursue the case and end up spending more on expense than the reward. Currently, according to Doroshow (2009), there are more liability protection for the medical profession than any other profession in the nation. The reforms actually offer Healthcare giants more protection by limiting tort actions and compensatory damages. For example, a Milwaukee woman was awarded $25.3 million in tort damages after losing all four limbs due to doctor negligence. Interestingly, Wisconsin law has a non-economic damage limit of $750,000, therefore the defense attorneys will likely ask for the award to be lowered to that amount (Spivak, 2014). Two vastly different example; however, the latter clearly demonstrated the reasonableness of the award—thus, reform is necessary, but a greater examination of special clauses may be in order to offset the

This case clearly demonstrates an unsafe act that occurred due to Dr. Ben’s negligence. Although, he later realized his mistake, and was able to correct it before it resulted in a harm to the patient. According to James reason, harm is caused by a series of systemic failures in the presence of hazard. The Swiss cheese model is used to demonstrate how several latent conditions could eventually lead to a harm in patient safety.

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.

25). Unfortunately, the article regarding Mr. Benson’s case did not give detail on whether or not proper documentation had occurred. However, one can assume documentation was not done properly as the wrong leg had been amputated. If proper documentation had been completed in Mr. Benson’s case, it is possible someone besides the surgeon may have caught the wrong leg was about to be amputated. An example of proper documentation would be the consenting of the patient for surgery. Mr. Benson had to have been consented for surgery, which means a doctor or a nurse practioner would discussed with the patient which leg was to be amputated, signs and symptoms of complications and what to expect after surgery. If there was any question once the patient was in the operating room, which leg to amputate, anyone could have looked in the patient’s chart to see what Mr. Benson had been consented for. Documentation of the time out could have also prevented Mr. Benson from having the wrong leg amputated. The reason being is, everyone involved in the case would have stopped and made sure the right patient was in the operating room and the right surgery was to be performed so it could be documented this act was completed. Not only proper documentation could have prevented this horrible act but also the help of the nurses could have prevented a mistake like this from happening.