Joni Black Case Brief for Schmidt v. Methodist Hospital Citation: Schmidt V. Methodist Hospital, Appellate Court of Indiana, Southern District, Indianapolis Division, 89 F.3d 342; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 17065; 5 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1340, July 9, 1996 Parties: Lester Schmidt/Plaintiff/Appellant (Employee) Methodist Hospital/Defendant/Appellee (Employer) Objectives: Plaintiff requested a jury trial to determine if the original court’s ruling should be overturned based upon his belief that the court did not uphold his right to be granted a transfer to another unit under the “reasonable accommodations” portion of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Theory of Litigation: Cause of action: Plaintiff was denied his request …show more content…
• Upon hire in August 1992, the Defendant allowed Plaintiff to choose between two units to work in. • Plaintiff chose to work in the Acute Dialysis Unit. • Plaintiff’s first day of work was on September 8, 1992. On that date, he began required 6-8-week training with Leeann Gerholdt who is a seasoned nurse in the Acute Dialysis Unit. • It became apparent very quickly to the Plaintiff that he could not differentiate between the different alarms and sounds that the various machines make to alert the nursing staff of potential issues with patients. • Gerholdt said that beside having a hard time hearing the alarms, the Plaintiff also couldn’t properly work the necessary equipment required, even after 5 weeks of training. • The Plaintiff also agreed that he was not able to properly operate the equipment. • Gerholdt said that the Plaintiff was also unable to make decisions in regards to patient care quickly in emergent situations. The Defendant admitted that he was worried about his ability to make sound decisions in the event of an emergency. • Plaintiff had a meeting with Gerholdt and a clinical instructor to discuss the problems that the Plaintiff was experiencing on
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.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions.
It is the case against “Dr. Wolodzko” (defendant) by “Mrs. Stowers” (the plaintiff) in Wayne County court for the actions taken by the defendant and confinement of the plaintiff in the private mental hospital based on valid court order.
Keller claims to have unlocked doors, turning on lights, turning on the air compressor, reviewing employee schedules, and distributing fabric to other workstations. The district court did not hear from the plaintiff’s sister and co-worker. She stated that her sister didn’t work before the start of the shift. The district court found that Kellar’s pre-shift activities were non-compensable preliminary activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act of
Our system isn’t require to provided five star services to its incarcerated members of society, our justice system is only require to provide enough care to not inflict any addition harm. The Plaintiff may or may not have been aware of his medical condition prior to entering pretrial confinement, therefore, it was not noted on the intake
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
1.) Parental discrimination was grounds for the complaint because Professional Neurological Services did not seem to have a problem with Dana Lockwood until she disclosed that she was a parent. Also, Lockwood also made it clear that being a parent would not hinder her ability to meet the organization’s required working requirement of 70 hours per week. Lockwood had to reschedule her meeting to care for her child who had pinkeye, which should be considered a justifiable excuse to reschedule a meeting (PNS fired her instead).
Nurses on this unit have recently made it known that they feel a lack of support from management and that patient acuity is not being considered when making shift assignments.
In the case of Tomcik v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction, the main issue present was the medical negligence demonstrated by the staff of the medical clinic at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction towards the inmate Tomcik. Specifically, nonfeasance, or the “failure to act, when there is a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances” (Pozgar, 2016, p. 192), was displayed when the employees at the medical clinic failed to give immediate medical attention to Tomcik when she continually signed the clinic list and “provided the reason she was requesting
Communication is one of the main issues. The information is not being communicated to the patient, the secondary nurse and the doctor, which in turn creates confusion, anxiety and waste of time. Prioritizing and organizational skills is also lacking as I did not focus on the unstable systems
Which gets us to the believe that justice is a matter of feeding people what they merit, and acquiring the practicing of those who participate and should be honored. Sandel brings forth the golfer and the lawsuit, which is noted under the “42 U.S.C. 12182 (a) sets forth Title III’s general rule prohibiting public accommodations from discriminating against individuals because of their disabilities.” As the law states “A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures. When such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities. Unless the entity can demonstrate that making such changes would fundamentally change the nature of such commodities, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
Royal College of Nursing v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] 2 WLR 279,CA