More handpicked essays just for you.
Tort law case studies on negligence
Negligent conduct as a civil offence with case study
Negligent conduct as a civil offence with case study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Tort law case studies on negligence
He did not use an opthalmoscope nor order an x-ray of the eye. This treatment took about twenty to thirty minutes. Later that same evening, the plaintiff’s eye bothered him again and wife tried to contact an eye surgeon was not successful in doing so until 9:00 the next morning, on Sunday. Under the orders of Dr. Carson, the eye was x-rayed whereupon he was hospitalized at about noon on Sunday. He then had surgery to remove the piece on Monday morning with Dr. Carson. Afterwards, he then had no sight in his right eye, except to distinguish between light and dark (Perry & Thompson, 2017, p. 173). The plaintiff sued for malpractice charging that the emergency room physician was negligent because he did not use an opthalmoscope nor did an
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
Facts: A minor and his mother filed suit for damages against Tri-County Orthopedic physicians for false diagnose and filling a child abuse reports. The Michigan Court of Appeals rule that child abuse reporting statue provides immunity to persons who file the child abuse was report in good faith even if the reports were a negligent diagnosis which was cause of the child bone fractures. The court also appealed that damage of shame and humiliation was not recoverable to Michigan statute. Immunity from liability did not extend for damages of malpractice which has been the result from the failure to diagnose the child disease.
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)
In the case of Riser v. American Medical Int’l, Inc., Riser, a 69-year-old mother of four children, was suffering from circulation complications in her lower arms and hands. She had a history of several conditions such as diabetes mellitus, end-stage renal failure, and arteriosclerosis. The physician at Hospital A, Dr. Sottiurai, requested bilateral arteriograms to find the etiology of Riser’s circulation problems. However, Hospital A could not fulfill Dr. Sottiurai’s request, so Riser was transferred to Hospital B under the care of Dr. Lang, who was a radiologist. At this instance, Dr. Lang mistakenly performed a femoral arteriogram instead of the bilateral arteriogram that Dr. Sottiurai had originally ordered, and after the procedure when Riser was on her way to be
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….
In the plaintiff’s suit, he alleged the surgery did not go well because the hospital had hired a surgeon, who was not competent or qualified enough to perform the surgery therefore; the hospital was just as negligent as the doctor was. Before the trial date, Dr. Salinsky and his insurance company, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, settled with plantiff out of court on the basis they will be released from the suit upon payment of $140,000 (Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital). Although, Salinsky settled with plaintiff prior to trial, there was still “question of whether he was negligent in the manner in which he performed the operation on July 11, 1975, remained an issue at trial, as it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that Salinsky was negligent in this respect to establish a
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
for eyesight, Lance Planck was found not to be in need of any service. Despite
The Schenck case in the early 1900s dealt with the freedom of speech as it related to the draft of World War I. Charles Schenck sent mass mail that stated “the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system” (Schenck v. United States). The federal government found this to be in violation of the Clear and Present Danger Test as well as the Espionage Act and arrested Schenck for his actions. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court and was ruled in favor of the United States unanimously. The opinion of the court violates the free speech clause as well as a right to have peaceful protest by denying Schenck to share his opinions of the draft with others despite the opinion of the government on this action. Due to these violations the ruling on the Schneck v. United States case should be overturned in order to protect the right of free speech and protest to all citizens.
Here we have Dr. Todd performing a phacoemulsification, or in simpler terms, small cut cataract surgery. When a cataract is developed, the eye’s natural lens is cloudy and is usually a result of an injury, disease, or aging. During cataract surgery, the cloudy lens is removed or cleaned out and replaced by
The Oyez Project. N.p., n.d. Web. The Web. The Web. 18 Mar. 2010. http://www.eyes.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18>.
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 compensate victims for any negligence.
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.
Whether Plaintiff has stated a cause of action against his physician and other defendants for using his cells for medical research without his permission
Regarding to the ocular examination, the patient's visual acuity without optical correction (spectacle) was good 20/20 in both eyes. IOP measurements was 18 mmHg on the right eye and 16 mmHg in the left eye. The pupil was equal, round and reactive to light with no afferent pupillary defect in both eyes. In extarocular movement test, there was limited downward gaze with