What was the legal issue in this case? The plaintiff was a patient at Mesilla Valley Hospital at the inpatient mental facility, while she was seeking treatment there; one of their staff Joseph Herrera (technician) sexually battered her. Plaintiff is suing the County of Dona Ana, because Herrera used to work for them as a detention sergeant, during his employment with the county he was known to be sexually abusive towards female inmates. His supervisors were aware of his behavior and were arranging his suspension and eventually terminating him; nevertheless Herrera quit before any further action was taken against him. Before his resignation Herrera asked for a letter of recommendation, he was given one that mentioned he was an excellent worker …show more content…
and that the county would gladly re-hire him. The legal issue in this case is whether or not the county’s letter of recommendation caused impairment to the plaintiff, Davis. Did the positive feedback have a role in hiring Herrera, and how did the letter influenced Mesilla Valley Hospital to hire someone who was potentially precarious to their patients. Why does the court conclude that Doña Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation)? Court concluded that Dona Ana County could be held legally responsible for a negligent referral on the basis that each citizens have a basic liability to not bring or cause harm to each other, and to make every attempt to stop harm from happening to someone. This being said, the County did not take the appropriate steps to ensure the communal wellbeing. The County mislaid Herrera’s potential employer by not telling them the truth, and influencing their decision based on the information they gave them.
The court acknowledged that this recommendation was negligent, since they botched to prevent destruction from happening to someone else. Should it have mattered that the former employer’s investigation was not able to confirm all of the allegations against Herrera? Explain your answer. Herrera’s resigned from his position before his investigation can be fully completed. However, the court’s resolution that the County is liable for negligence is applicable. The County had the choice of not providing any information; instead they gave an exceptional recommendation. Since the county’s recommendation was outstanding MVH might have been relaxed in conducting their background check and may have not been very efficient based on the information provided to them? The County became negligent when they gave MVH inaccurate information, despite of whether Herrera was found to have had any sexual misdemeanors, the fact that there were quite a few accusations and grievances against him was enough to make the County reconsider giving him any type of recommendation. Since the investigation was not entirely implemented it would have been a wiser decision if the county abstained from having any sort of opinion on Herrera’s performance rather than giving false information. (Walsh,
2009). What practical implications does this decision hold? Are you convinced by the court’s claim that this ruling should not make employers more reluctant to provide references? The practical implications is that when an employer is providing a letter of recommendation to an employee with ethical issues, they should be very careful, truthful, and keep on mind how their recommendation will affect a potential employer. Employers who cause harm to a third party by providing false information should and will be held liable. The courts claim should not make employers more reluctant to provide references. If anything employers should be aware ( both employers, former, and potential) and make the time and effort to conduct a comprehensive background check on all their employees. I personally think a letter of recommendation should be giving to an employee from their direct supervisor but via HR. HR should be aware of what’s in the letter to avoid any misrepresentation of the company.
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
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
Issue: The appellants are claiming that the court erred in determining that the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act (MLIA) was not applicable in their claims. Mainly on errors and omissions of medical staff as well as asserted administrative negligence of the hospital that actually occurred before the defendant was admitted at the facility. The appellees’ motion relied on Rose v Garland County Hospital. (Las Colinas Medical Centre)
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
Medical malpractice cases are difficult for the families who have lost their loved one or have suffered from severe injuries. No one truly wins in complicated court hearings that consist of a team of litigation attorneys for both the defendant and plaintiff(s). During the trial, evidence supporting malpractice allegations have to be presented so that the court can make a decision if the physician was negligent resulting in malpractice, or if the injury was unavoidable due to the circumstances. In these types of tort cases, the physician is usually a defendant on trial trying to prove that he or she is innocent of the medical error, delay of treatment or procedure that caused the injury. The perfect example of being at fault for medical malpractice as a result of delaying a procedure is the case of Waverly family versus John Hopkins Health System Corporation. The victims were not compensated enough for the loss of their child’s normal life. Pozgar (2012) explained….
These are not the only reasons for urgency to find a killer; the Solicitor General of Atlanta’s circuit, Hugh M. Dorsey, desperately needed a successful conviction because he had recently failed to convict two accused murderers. He was concerned about putting together a case that would hold up in court; no matter what lengths he had to go to in order to accomplish this. Overtime, it became obvious that Dorsey did not necessarily believe that Frank was guilty, but recognized that the political values of his position were uncertain.
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.
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.).
In an article written by a Senior student they discuss a monumental moment in Mexican American history concerning equality in the South. The student’s paper revolves around the Pete Hernandez V. Texas case in which Hernandez receives a life in prison sentence by an all white jury. The essay further discusses how Mexican Americans are technically “white” americans because they do not fall into the Indian (Native American), or black categories and because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. The student’s paper proceeds to discuss the goals connecting the Hernandez V. Texas case which was to secure Mexican American’s right within the fourteenth amendment [1].
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.
make there decision, but in the end there was no way that the jury was going to believe a
...isors requested that Sheriff Lee Baca report about the hiring of disqualify officers. Baca wrote a letter sent to the board stating “acknowledged that the hiring standards were violated. I delegated the authority for making the hiring decisions to his undersheriff at the time, Larry Waldie. My direction was unequivocal that we were to only hire qualified candidates “according to the LA Times. The department is still assessing the hiring of deputies and already developmenting new reforms.
Explain the issue or dilemma using information from the readings in the book and other sources.
The purpose of this case study is to investigate and bring new insight to situations and behaviors within an organization. Case studies are learning tools which utilize social science research to identify and resolve individual and organizational challenges (K. Mariama-Arthur Esq., 2015).