Question

Dr. Gee is a surgeon at ECH. He is an employee of ECH and is a member of the medical staff. He is 68 years old and has been on staff for 40 years. As an Administrator at ECH, you’ve worked with him for several years. Last week, he came to your office for a meeting scheduled to discuss operating room start times. When he is 10 minutes late, you have him paged. He is apologetic and will be right there. You meet with him for 30 minutes and during that time, Dr. Gee repeats himself multiple times, doesn’t follow the conversation and you notice his right hand is shaking. Surgical staff has reported that other surgeons cover for Dr. Gee. Patients complain he cancels appointments and that his nurse practitioner won’t allow access to the surgeon. Today, you get a call from radiology. A surgical instrument was noted on x-ray of a patient 3 weeks postop. You learn that Dr. Gee performed abdominal surgery on Patient Sheldon 3 weeks ago. Sheldon, a 72-year-old man, was discharged 3 days post-operative and was seen in the outpatient clinic today for his post-operative checkup. He reported pain and nausea. A routine x-ray of his abdomen was ordered and the surgical instrument was identified. Sheldon died from sepsis 6 weeks after his initial surgery when the retained surgical instrument perforates his intestine.

A professional liability claim was brought against Dr. Gee and ECH on behalf of patient Sheldon. Plaintiff’s lawyer brings the lawsuit under the Res Ipsa Loquitor doctrine. The practical effect of a claim brought under the Res Ipsa doctrine is:

No expert testimony is required at trial

Expert testimony about duty and breach are not required and the burden of proof crosses to the defendant.

Damages are not an element

Causation is not an element.

Gee meets with his defense counsel to prepare an Answer to the Petition and to prepare for his deposition testimony. Which of the following is not a form of pretrial discovery in a professional negligence action?

Request for Production of Documents

Deposition

Interrogatory

Modicum Brief

During discovery, plaintiff discovers information that suggests Dr. Gee has had a drinking problem for many years, sought treatment in rehab 2 years ago, and has been emergently treated for medical detox on multiple occasions. Plaintiff also discovers email and other communications suggesting that staff ‘cover for’ Dr. Gee when he doesn’t show up to clinic, nurses and other office staff see his patients, document in the record under Dr. Gee’s name and bill for physician visits.

During Dr. Gee’s deposition, plaintiff counsel asks Dr. Gee if he ever discussed his drinking problem with his defense counsel. Defense counsel objects. The law protects specific types of communications, including documents. These protections are intended to promote:

Meaningful interactions between a provider and patient

Patient safety by encouraging open and non-punitive analysis of events

Meaningful interactions between an attorney and his or her client

Tort reform by disfavoring plaintiffs

All the above

a, b and c

b, c and d

Answer 1

B,c,and d

Tort reform affect the ability of individual to recover damages for injuries suffered through another party's negligence..the most common approach to tort reform focus on statutes of limitations,which can limit the amount of time a person has to file a lawsuit.. Attorneys in personal injury cause work on a contingency basis and collect their compensation when and it plaintiff's win..

Tort reform disfavoring plaintiff's will not protect communication and will not make interactions between providers and Patient when there is tort reform happened..