In March 2009 defendants retained as a consulting expert Elizabeth Kavaler, M.D. In October 2009, while reviewing medical records of a plaintiff who had filed suit two months earlier, defense counsel discovered that Dr. Kavaler had surgically implanted a Gynecare product during treatment of that plaintiff. Defense counsel immediately informed plaintiffs’ liaison counsel and advised Dr. Kavaler not to disclose to the defense any information about the plaintiff she had treated. Defense counsel then discontinued discussion with Dr. Kavaler pending determination of her eligibility to serve as a defense expert. Later, the plaintiff who had been treated by Dr. Kavaler testified in deposition that she stopped seeing Dr. Kavaler in July 2008, that …show more content…
In January 2011, defendants moved to establish a protocol similar to ones used in some federal litigation for consulting with and possibly retaining as defense experts physicians who had treated a plaintiff in the pelvic mesh litigation. Defendants proposed that a treating physician would have no communication with the defense about his or her own patient-plaintiff and would not be used as an expert witness in the patient-plaintiff’s own case. Plaintiffs’ counsel opposed the motion and cross-moved for a protective order barring defendants from retaining or consulting with any physician who at any time had treated any of the plaintiffs in the pelvic mesh litigation. Decision: After the parties provided additional information, the trial court issued an order and written decision dated May 26, 2011 barring defendants from consulting with or retaining any physician who had at any time treated any plaintiff in the pelvic mesh litigation as identified in plaintiffs’ list. At the time of the court’s order, the number of plaintiffs had risen to more than 220. One thousand physicians were thus disqualified as potential defense experts. At the time appellate briefs were filed in December 2011, the list numbered about 450 plaintiffs and about 1,300
On June 19th of 1990, Robert Baltovich’s girlfriend Elizabeth Bain went missing. Elizabeth told her family that she was going to check the tennis schedules at her school, the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus. She never returned, but her car was eventually recovered. It was found with blood on the backseat, with forensic tests showing that it was Elizabeth’s. With no clear evidence, the “solving” of the case was completely based on eyewitness testimonies, which eventually had Robert arrested for the murder of his girlfriend.
Renee Heikamp, 19, and case worker from the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS), Angie Martin, were charged with criminal negligence resulting in the 1997 death of newborn baby, Jordan Heikamp. The charges were dropped shortly after Jordan’s death, due to a lack of evidence from the investigation of a 63-day inquest. (CBC, 2001). Renee Heikamp and her baby were residing at the Anduhyaun shelter that services Aboriginal women fleeing abuse during the time of his death. Jordan Heikamp had starved to death, weighing only 4 pounds, 4 ounces less than what he weighed at his pre-mature birth, in May 1997; a photograph shown to witnesses at the inquest revealed the corpse of the baby who was little more than a skeleton.
When conducting research for my project, I came across a website that contained a few primary sources regarding the Salem Witch Trials. One of these primary sources was the photo of a legal document explaining the death warrant and reasons for execution of a woman named Bridget Bishop. Bishop was claimed to be a witch in Salem during the year 1692, and the document explaining her significance involving witchcraft resides in the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts. My thesis for this primary source is that the judge and jury believed they were seeking justice by executing Bishop, a woman whose death was truthfully based on her differences as a person rather than actual crimes she committed.
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
Montague and her Husband sued Drummond and Nursefinders. Montague alleged causes of action for negligence, battery and negligence per se and intentional affliction of emotional distress under a theory of respondent superior. She also alleged that Nursefinders negligently hired, supervised and trained Drummond. Montague’s husband claimed for loss of consortium.
Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction are the poor-quality patient care that Tomcik received and Tomcik’s health being at risk. Once engaged in a doctor-patient relationship, physicians are obligated to provide the best possible care for the patient by utilizing their skills and knowledge as expected from a competent physician under the same or similar conditions (“What Is a Doctor’s Duty of Care?” n.d.). However, in Tomcik’s situation, Dr. Evans did not deliver high-quality care, for he administered a perfunctory breast examination and thus did not follow standard protocols. There is evidence of indifference conveyed by Dr. Evans, and the lack of proper care towards Tomcik is an issue that can be scrutinized and judged appropriately. Additionally, Tomcik’s health was at risk due to the failure of a proper physical evaluation and the incredibly long delay in diagnosis and treatment. The negligence from Dr. Evans, along with the lack of medical attention sought out by Tomcik after she had first discovered the lump in her breast, may contribute to Tomcik’s life being in danger as well as the emotional anguish she may have felt during that time period. Overall, the incident of Tomcik’s expectations from the original physician and other employees at the institution not being met is an ethical issue that should be dealt with
Registered Nurse Pausits, a defendant out of the many involved with Parson’s case, has failed to provide Randy Parson with the correct prescription drug during his stay at Standish. The Plaintiff wanted to prove that she unsuccessfully administered medication to Randy Parsons and that a reasonable jury can conclude the fact Pausits was aware of the risks to Parsons. The court has reversed the grant of summary judgment to Nurse Pausits, because this case would rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff Parsons revealed that Pausits perceived facts to infer substantial risk to Randy Parsons and drew the inference. She had to state she was aware, which she did, of a substantial risk. Evidence has shown that Nurse Pausits could have gotten Dilantian for Randy Parson if she viewed the situation as an emergency. Pausit’s case has discovered confirmation that she administered 100mg of Dilantin to Randy Parsons August 27, at 6:00 p.m. However, in Randy’s toxicology report, no Dilantin was shown in his body for 3 days before his death, which was August 28. Wellbutrin was shown in Randy’s body instead of Dilantin, which is a form of an anti-depressant that helps people suffering from seizures and can prevent causing a seizure. Displayed that Pausits signed Randy’s Medication Administration Record (MAR), when the prison log showed that Registered Nurse Alexander performed the medication August 27, raises a red flag as to who performed the medication and what prescription was given. The Plaintiff provided enough evidence towards Pausits in that she has unsuccessfully administered the medication to Randy and that Pausits was aware of a substantial risk to Randy Parsons. Because of this, a jury can place more significance on the t...
The Board received a complaint on 04/02/2014 regarding patient Gloria Kinder from Dena Andrews who has a POA for health care matters on the patient. The complaint was regarding Dr. Negron taking over care of the patient after her primary care doctor retired. The complainant states that the doctor would not refill her potassium, did not do follow up labs, and would not care for the patient.
In association to this, those medical physicians granted the responsibility to act upon these potential laws will have to regain the trust between themselves and the patient and also the patient’s family.
The major implication of this decision is that each state decides the type of evidence required to withhold or withdraw medical treatment from an incompetent patient. The state ...
I believe that memories that have been repressed and later on recovered should not be allowed in court to prosecute an alleged abuser because memories could be contaminated and even if the person truly thinks that the memory happened it could all just be a false memory. In a ted talk Elizabeth Loftus, mentioned that the memories of an individual could not be trusted completely because they could suffer a misinformation effect, where the person might hear or see something about the case that changes their existing memories and tricks them into believing that the alleged abuser is guilty, when in fact he or she is innocent. These phenomenon can occurs to anyone that is exposed to any other information about a case or any situation in general
Facts of the case: The plaintiff was a housewife living in Livonia, Michigan along with her husband and children. She wanted to apply for divorce due to the difficulties in their marital life and informed her husband about divorce two months prior to this incident. On December 6, 1963, the defendant came to the plaintiffs’ house by introducing himself as “Dr. Wolodzko” who had never met the couple before. Except that, the plaintiff did not know that he was a psychiatrist or he was there to examine her as requested by her husband. The plaintiff spoke with the defendant on telephone by the suggestion of Livonia police woman due to the domestic quarrel with her husband and at that time he informed himself as a psychiatrist to the plaintiff.
• The patient must provide a written request to their physician, signed with two witnesses present.
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 W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods. The two co-defendants’ attorneys are William Cheeseman, Jerome Facher, Neil Jacobs, and Michael Keating.
physician will need information on the complete medical history of the patient, the list of