Question

In ITURRALDE v. HILO MEDICAL CENTER USA answer the following questions:

Issue (What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court?)
● Who are the parties in this case: plaintiff and defendant?
● What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court?
● Is the court deciding a question of fact—i.e., are the parties in dispute over what happened? Or is it a question of law—i.e., is the court unsure which rule to apply to these facts?
● Which facts of the case raise issues?
● What are the nonissues?
● Other

Answer 1

Issue (What facts and c brought these parties to court?) Who are the parties in this Rosalinda Iturralde personal representative of the Estate of Arturo Iturralde the Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellant v. Hilo Medical Center and case plaintiff and Defendants- Appellees, Cross- Appellants Hawaii Health Systems Corporation, and Metronics Sofamor Danek and Robert Ricketson M.D.-Appellees defendant? WhatfactsandArtro Itumalde was admitted into Hilo Medical Center (HMC) following an assessment of increased leg weakness. An orthopedic surgeon confirmed that he was circumstances brought suffering from spinal stenosis or degenerative spondylolisthesis of L4-L5. His condition would require a spinal fusion surgery that would require M8 titanium CD these parties to court? Horizon Kit to be preordered prior to surgery (Findlaw for Legal Professionals, 2018). Dr. Ricketson was fully aware that the kit required for surgery was missing the necessary parts to perform the surgery. In fact, a nurse advised him prior that hospital policy to check inventory was not complete. Yet, he continued with the surgery, which led him toimprovise by making unilateral rods out of screwdriver material leftover in the kit when the titanium rods could not be located. The companyshipping the M8 titanium CD Hoizon Kit (Medtronic's) was unable to confirm if the rods were delivered to HMC (Findlaw for Legal Professionals, 2018) Post-operative, Arturo sustained a fall causing the makeshift screwdriver shaft to fracture resulting in an additional surgery to replace and correct the broken shaft with the proper titanium rods (Findlaw for Legal Professionals, 2018). Dr. Ricketson failed to notify the patient of what transpired during the surgery. However, a nurse that was present during the initial surgery Janelle Feldmeyer reported the incident to her supervisor (Findlaw for Legal Professionals, 2018) The supervisor advised nurse Felmeyer it was up to the surgeon to communicate this information to the patient. Nurse Feldmeyer tried to reach out to the patient as well as his sister Roslinda to inform them of what happened (Findlaw for Legal Professionals, 2018). In addition, she went as far as retrieving the shattered screwdriver shaft and submitting it to an attomey as evidence as well as informing Roslinda so she could relay the information to her brotherFindlaw for Legal Professionals, 2018). Following the patient's discharge, his health continued to rapidly decline. He was unable to live an independent lifestที่e or to care for his personal hygiene ndlaw Legal Professionals, 2018). He required regular catheterization on a daily basis that was performed by close family members or a home nursing aide (Findlaw for L Professionals, 2018). He was in constant pain, became depressed, and lost his will to keep going. Subsequently, he endured two more surgeries to remove the anium r that had dislodged as we as rehabilitation. After, the final surgery his physical condition deteriorated and eventually he required permanent catheterization and bedridden. Regrettably, the patient passed away due to complications of urosepsis (Findlaw for Legal Professionals, 2018).

Is the court deciding a question of fact i.e, are the parties in dispute over I believe the court is applying the law or statue of HRS § 663 10.5 to this case Justa US Law, 2018) l think the court is having a hard time deciding who should be what happened? Or is i aresponsible for their actions and how much each party should cover in special damages, general damages, and punitive damages to the Estate of Arturo Iturralde.The question of law ie. is the infomation presented in the court records is in regards to what transpired during the surgery and the consequences of negligent health care from the provider Findlaw court unsure which rule to for Legal Professionals, 2018) apply to these facts? Which facts of the case Hilo Medical Center was negligent and liable for siving Dr. Ricketsom hospital credentials without checking his background and disciplinary infractions in order to raise issues? prevent medical malpractice as well as to ensure patient safety at the hospital HMC and staff for not checking the inventory of the M8 titanium CD Horizon kit prior to surgery. Medtronic's, for product liability for providing and shipping an incomplete kit Dr. Ricketson lack of reasonable care for performing the surgery without the proper equipment and for inserting a device not approved or intended for human implantation Dr. Ricketsons for not abiding by the Medical Code of Ethics in regards to Section -1 Arturo Iturralde did not receive the physician full respect nor were full measures taken or devotion provided to the patient (Riddick, 2003) Section- 4 a physician should uphold all laws but in this case, Dr Ricketson known that he was violating his oath by practicing with prior offenses and disciplinary actions against him (Riddick, 2003). Section 6 Dr. Ricketson medical judgements were flawed this eroded the quality of medical care given to the patient (Riddick, 2003). Section -8 Dr. Ricketson should have consulted with another surgeon when he was in doubt about what to do in his situation. Instead, he took upon himself to makeshift spinal rod and inserted it into the patient. His negative actions decreased the quality of care given to the patient instead of enhancing the quality of care Riddick, 2003).

makeshift spinal rod and inserted it into the patient. His negative actions decreased the quality of care siven to the patient instead of enhancing the quality of cae (Riddick, 2003). Nurse Feldmeyer, actions to obtained infomation as well as the shattered screwdriver as evidence for the patient, and having to go above her supervisor's head to report wrongful doings. This indicates she went beyond her professional dutiesunder the Nurses Code of Ethics to fulfill her moral obligation toensure the quality of care given to the patient as well as the quality of care at HMC meet high standards(Browne, 2012) What are the nonissues? Rosalinda's emotional distress . . Medtronic's for not confirming the shipment prior to the patient's surgery Arturo inability to care for his personal hygiene's may have contributed to the incident at HMC, which led to pemanent and regular catheterization , which further complicated his health and eventually took his life. Good-faith settlement with Hawaii Orthopedics, Inc. plus a promissory note of payment that was contingent based on the outcome of Appellant's claims (Findlaw for Legal Professionals, 2018). Other Modified from http://www.lawnerds.com/guide irac html