More handpicked essays just for you.
Negligence and tort related case studies
Cases of medical negligence in law of torts
Subtopics of medical malpractice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Mohammed Alkhudair
Professor Harris
IENG 461
8 Sept 2015
Calisi v. Abbott Laboratories
Summary:
Calisi (Plaintiff) developed lymphoma after taking the product manufactured by Abbott Laboratories (Defendant). Plaintiff took an arthritis medication for approximately four years, and brought a lawsuit against Defendant for the illness that he incurred after taking the medication. The lawsuit was filed in the United States Supreme Court in the District of Massachusetts “for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.” Additionally, the claim brought against the Defendant included negligence because the Defendant failed to warn the Plaintiff of the risk of developing lymphoma from taking the medication.
One expert that was brought in
by the Plaintiff testified that the labeling failed to warn patients of the risk of side-effect from the drug. Both parties moved to dismiss certain claims and statutes due to wording in the current laws during the trial. Furthermore, the Plaintiff argued that there was not direct warning from advertisements on television, radio, newspaper ads, etc.; however, Massachusetts law did not recognize that type of warning from the manufacturer to the consumer. The only duty the Defendant had with the current law was to warn the physician of the risks and dangers of patients consuming their product. Plaintiff admitted she did not review Defendant’s websites or ads; however, the physician provided the Plaintiff with a video with plenty of warnings of the risks and dangers of consuming the drug manufactured by the Defendant. Moreover, the court did not find the expert witness’ testimony reliable towards the labeling due to the statutes of duty directly to the consumer from the manufacturer, according to United States Food and Drug Administration labeling regulation. Ruling: The court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Update: From personal knowledge, many advertisements have changed in the recent years as how manufacturers advertise side-effects and other dangers and risks from taking their drugs. It is unknown if this case had anything to do with the changes that are now heard and read in magazines and labels on drug advertisements and packages and containers. Works Cited: Calisi v. Abbott Laboratories “Product Liability Update.” Jan. 2014. Web.
No further information was given and the questionnaire was not filled out. LAA’s doctors (Defendant), Dr. Preau and Dr. Dennis, submitted referral letters for on his behalf. The letter from Dr. Dennis and Dr. Preau stated that both of them had worked with Dr. Berry and they highly recommend Dr. Berry as an anaestheologist. Based on the letter and recommendations, Kadlec hired him. Approximately a year later, Berry again started using Demerol. On work at Kadlec, he committed gross negligence resulting in severe brain damage to patient. Due to this incidence Kadlec learned that Dr. Berry had been fired from Lakeview. Kadlec first settled Dr. Berry’s malpractice case and then filed suit against Lakeview, its shareholders, and LMC for intentional negligence and strict responsibility misrepresentation based on LMC’s omission of material facts in the letter to Kadlec. The district court supported Plaintiff’s theory. LMC’s moved for summary
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
FACTS: Respondent, Davis, a licensed LPN for over ten years who also lives with hearing loss applied for admissions to Southeastern Community College. The Petitioner, requested Davis see an audiologist before accepting her to the RN program. The audiologist concluded that Davis required lip-read in order to fully understand audible communication. The school subsequently denied Davis entry, assuming her hearing loss would affect her ability to effective care for patients safely.
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
Established in 1968, the medical school at the University of California implemented a special admissions program to increase the representation of minorities in each entering class. There was one underlying problem with their special admissions program that was not addressed until 1973 when Allan Bakke submitted his application to the University of California.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
Gonzales v. Oregon is a Supreme Court case that took place in 2005, with the verdict and dissenting opinions stated in January of 2006. The case is about the General Attorney’s ruling of a medical practice to be illegal. The Attorney General at the time was John Ashcroft, appointed under President George Bush Jr., who authorized that the usage of lethal doses of medicine on terminally-ill patients to be illegal under the Controlled Substance Act in 1970. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 is a federal United States drug policy which limits the usage of certain medications in a variety of ways. (Oyez, n.d.).
Facts: The petitioners, the leaders of the Communist Political Association (CPA), reorganized the Association into the Communist Party through changing its policies of peaceful cooperation with the United States and its economic and political structure to into the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the Communist Party. The Communist Party set itself apart from other political parties by disregarding the normal process of change set forth by the constitution. From the literature, statements, and activities of the petitioners, the Communist Party leaders, it is clear that their goal was to achieve a successful overthrow of the government of the United States through the use of force and violence.
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
In United States v. Alvarez, Xavier Alvarez claimed that he was a retired marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being wounded repeatedly by the same person in combat. These claims were made in an attempt to have him gain more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards (GovTrack). The Government stated that there was first amendment value applicable to Alvarez’s false statements, and that his statements caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the award of Honor would drop and that this type of false speech falls under the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, since his statements were not made with the intention of financial benefits or special treatment, his false claims may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect.
California was heard by the Supreme Court, Riley stated that a smartphone and whatever it may contain does not provide a threat to police officers, therefore People v. Diaz does not apply. Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford University law professor, served as Riley’s representation (Riley v. California, n.d.). He boiled his argument down to the searching of a cell phone is nothing more than an invasion of privacy, as most people now have their entire life on their personal devices (Liptak, 2014).
The statute of limitation refers to the length of time in which a plaintiff can file a claim. The principle behind statute of limitation is that lawsuits cannot be improved as time passes by. For one, clear details of the facts can be blurred as memories can fade and witnesses may die, go away, or lose interest of the case. Ideally, court prefers to settle the case as soon as disputes develop (Warner, 2010). However, for professional and product liabilities, with injuries may take time to manifest, many courts adapted different rules such as postponing the running of the statute until the injury has been reasonably discovered. The length of time differs among states and branches of law (Danzon, 1985). The long and deferred statutes of limitations lead to long tail of claims and contributed majority of medical malpractice and product liability (Danzon, 1985). In this section, statutes of limitations for medical malpractice in two states are compared.
On February 28, 2018 Judge William H Orrick was presented a case of the City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions and State of CA v. Sessions. [http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/city-and-county-san-francisco-v-sessions-and-state-ca-v-sessions] The procedural posture was a motion to dismiss and the issue at hand was regarding immigration status verses enforcement.
A. Katz was observed routinely using the three same public phone booths on the same day and on a daily basis. From February 19 to 25, FBI agents decided to place a microphone on the outside top of the booth in order to listen to Katz’s conversation. Since the microphone was placed in the outside of the booth, the FBI agents were only able to hear Katz’s conversation but not the respondent’s conversation. After studying the transcripts, the subject matter of them pertained to bet placing and the gathering of gambling information. The FBI agents obtained a search warrant after they rented a room next to Katz’s apartments, so they could further listen to Katz’s conversations through the wall. In the District Court for the Southern California District, the
Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), "National Biscuit sued Kellogg over the manufacture and sale of a breakfast cereal known as shredded wheat. Shredded wheat was first introduced in 1893 and then again in 1905 when a the inventor tried to trademark it and it was denied. National Biscuit years later acquired the rights to shredded wheat inventor business and eventual got a shredded wheat patent issued that eventually expired in 1912. Some ten years later in 1922 Kellogg started marketing their own version of shredded wheat in the same shape as Nation Biscuit. National Biscuit filed a lawsuit and the court ruled that Kellogg will not use the name shredded wheat and that they will not advertise or sell the pillow shaped