Tort Case Study

Given that Ms. Shraud was stern with her, therefore, she was apprehensive and nervous about asking questions. When Ms. New went to scan the letters, Ms. New Incidentally made an error and scanned a document in with another patient. That data loaded into the patient appeal records unbeknownst to me.
Ms. New was from work on Wednesday, upon her return, the day progressed with a lot more caseloads as Taryn tasks more audit and appeals cases to Ms. New. Earlier Ms. New went to the bathroom and left deodorant in there. Taryn comes out and implies that the person that left the deodorant in the bathroom is unsanitary. As everyone in the office proclaims, it was not their deodorant that only left me. Ms. New was embarrassed by her comments and quietly went into the bathroom and retrieved her deodorant. After that, Ms. New goes to the bathroom outside of the office when Taryn is present.
Later Taryn had paid for LAWRENCE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (LMH)) coffees for all compliance staff. As
New knows that it is not her work ethic. Ms. New also work another position in Baldwin for Baker University since Sept 2016, and Ms. New have had no issues with her cohorts or supervision. Ms. New is doing well, and they are extending the grant so that Ms. New can do more specialized work for Baker University. The information Ms. Taryn provides is decentralized and Ad HOC, piecemeal at best no one can learn under these conditions. MS. New is at a complete disadvantage to working a full-time load on a part-time schedule. Additionally, it is unreasonable to expect the competency and proficiency equal to the person that built the system. The system is complex and should revise to a more user based module. The process of appeals is simple. However, the method of documenting and retrieving information and updating is not. Some silos impede algorithms for sure. Aside from the hostile behavior, Ms. New believe another huge problem is a lack of knowledge management training and ethics