Question

This assignment gives you an opportunity to consider the facts of a case potentially involving claims of negligence. You will have the opportunity to analyze the possible claims, as well as the potential defenses to any claim presented by the plaintiff. The facts of the case are described below. Following an automobile accident, a 46-year-old man was brought to the hospital emergency department by an ambulance. The patient seemed to be alert, was able to answer questions, and claimed to be suffering from a great deal of pain. The physician administered 15 milligrams of morphine intravenously. The patient needed blood but refused a transfusion. After being observed in the emergency department for several hours, the patient was placed on a medical-surgical unit for observation. The following morning, he was unresponsive, and he was eventually pronounced dead. It was later discovered that he had a long history of drug and alcohol abuse. The night of the accident, he had injected heroin and drank several shots of tequila and multiple cans of beer. He had not disclosed any of this to the doctors or nurses treating him. Several years later, his estate sued the physician, claiming medical malpractice. Analyze the possible outcomes of the lawsuit under one of the following scenarios: If death was the result of overdose If death was the result of failure to administer blood If death was the result of subdural hematoma In your short paper, analyze the potential success of a claim for negligence under one of the three possible scenarios. Include a detailed discussion of each element of the negligence claim and why that element is met or not met. Discuss the possible defenses that could be reasonably asserted by the doctor to each claim, and why that defense might apply. Lastly, include a paragraph describing which, if any, claim you believe might be the most successful against the doctor and why.

Answer 1

If the death was the result of an overdose

Solution: - There could be a claim for negligence. The main issue I see with the write-up is it does not divulge how much or what they discussed with the 46-year-old man. The write-up states they observed the patient for several hours. An inclination for illicit drug use isn't evident just by a patient's appearance. Amid those few hours there was no correspondence with the patient. The review states the individual could answer questions, anyway it doesn't express the therapeutic group scrutinized the 46-year-elderly person for medicinal history. There was likewise no blood board or pee test kept running by the lab. The review likewise does not discuss searching for restorative records in computerized arrange either. From the constrained review given, it appears the specialists and medical attendants were not careful in procuring vital data to settle on the right educated choice treating every patient like a suspect is not necessary, but asking questions and verifying medical history is. A good attorney could make a compelling case stating that the medical staff was negligent in obtaining the necessary information for an informed decision.

If the result of a failure to administer blood:

Solution: - The attorney could make a very compelling case in that the 46-year-old man was not in a valid mindset to make the refusal for a blood transfusion In the event that the specialists would have asked for medicinal data from the patient, verbally, and he misled them, they would have less shot of risk. Be that as it may, similarly as with the past imagine a scenario in which explanation, the therapeutic staff did not attempt to decide the medicinal foundation either electronically or verbally and consequently was not able settle on an appropriate choice. This decision created a chain reaction in which because they could not properly determine he was in a state of mind to make medical decisions was not given a necessary life-saving medical procedure. A lawyer could put forth a defense the restorative group did not react effectively and ought to have reached the resolution he was not able settle on an appropriate therapeutic choice in his psychological state.

If the death was the result of a subdural hematoma:

Solution: - I trust the medicinal staff by watching him for a few hours would have perceived manifestations of a subdural hematoma. From the review the 46-year-elderly person did not appear to be confounded, have discourse troubles, or seizures. Things in which would have justified more noteworthy consideration. Cerebral pains are normal with a car crash. Development troubles, loss of sensation, torpidity, and regurgitating additionally are very basic with car crashes. These could be from the injury and without anyone else's input would not point towards a subdural hematoma. The only potential for negligence is in dealing with the “great deal of pain.” The “great deal of pain” the man was stating is not described in the write-up. The location(s) would be a great indicator to the medical staff. If they did not get additional information from the patient on the extent or where his pain was derived from, there could be a case for negligence. However, from the extremely limited write-up I would not be able to determine whether I would call this negligence or not. I would require additional information from the medical staff to make a determination of medical negligence in the case of a report stating the death was due to a subdural hematoma. The constrained review made it very hard to decide whether blame could be demonstrated in an official courtroom. At the present time, with the plain constrained proof, I see a troublesome street ahead for any suit. A more broad examination is required for any appropriate allegation of carelessness.