A surgeon performs elective surgery on John Smith. Smith later complains to his surgeon about pain resulting from the surgery. His surgeon dismisses his complaints as not credible and eventually withdraws from the case. Smith is then treated by another surgeon, who determines that Smith developed complications from surgery and that the delay in treatment has made the complications worse. Smith sees an attorney about a possible lawsuit against the first surgeon. Name the causes of action and, using the facts provided in the scenario, explain the corresponding theories of liability that could support a lawsuit under these circumstances. Make sure to mention what elements a plaintiff would have to prove in each cause of action to support that theory of liability. Be sure to use citations in support of your assertions. You may cite cases or information you find on your own, so long as they are from a reputable source…
- The main legal issue is whether P can successfully sue D for negligence. There are 4 steps to prove negligence: Duty of care (DOC), Failure to meet the required Standard of Care, Causation and Remoteness.-Negligence is a conduct that falls below the standard of care required by society for the protection of certain others against an unreasonable risk of harm.…
To be guilty of negligence, a defendant in a lawsuit must breach that duty of care, and the breach of duty must be the cause of harm to the plaintiff.…
The first element that a plaintiff must prove is that the defendant owed him or her legal duty of care. Generally, this duty of care is a legal notion that states that people owe anyone around them or anyone who could be around them a duty to not place them in situations of undue risk of harm. Proving this element will largely depend on the facts of the situation. After the plaintiff has proved that a legal duty of care existed, he or she must then prove that this duty was breached. Generally, courts will use the standard of a ‘reasonable person’ when it comes to this question. Specifically, this means that the judge or jury must view the facts of the situation and decide what a reasonable person would have done in a similar situation. If this reasonable person would have acted differently than the defendant, it’s likely that it will be found that the duty was breached. Causation is the most complicated element of negligence. It means that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant either directly or indirectly caused the injuries and damages suffered by the plaintiff because of the breach of the duty of care. This element has confused even the most respected legal minds over time, and its proof should not be taken lightly. Last, a plaintiff in a negligence case must prove a legally recognized harm, usually in the form of physical injury to a person or to property. It is not enough that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. The failure to exercise reasonable care must result in actual damages to a person to whom the defendant owed a duty of care (FindLaw 2012). These damages can be actual costs such as medical expenses and lost income or intangible costs such as pain and suffering or loss of companionship.…
Negligence requires a showing that a duty was owed, that the duty was breached, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of damages.…
2. Negligence is the failure of an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person to exercise due care, resulting in harm or injury to the plaintiff. Negligence torts do not require intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the level necessary to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm. To determine if someone should be found liable for a negligence tort, a reasonable person standard is used. If the defendant 's behavior is found to be less careful than behavior a reasonable person would exhibit, that defendant can be found liable for damages.…
Question: In Baptist v. Sampson, the Texas Supreme Court did not agree with the appellate court that holding hospitals liable for the negligence of ER doctors should be a non-delegable duty. Explain why you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court. Under what theory can a hospital be held liable for the conduct of emergency room physicians who are independent contractors? You should be able to answer question three in no more than 2-3 pages. You need to discuss the theory of liability, what the appellate court held, what the Supreme court held...and why you believe one or the other is correct.…
In the Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, Dr. Alexander’s way of treating the patient is a great example of medical malpractice. Although the failure to follow the adequate standard of care might have been unintentional, it resulted in a very significant and permanent damage to the patient. When a patient chooses to go to a hospital to seek medical attention, he or she expects the facility to treat him with excessive care. In this case, the jury found negligence by both Dr. Alexander as well as in the nursing staff in regards to the follow ups as the medical record supported the evidence. I strongly believe that both the physician as well as the hospital (unless the physician was an independent contractor) are both responsible…
-However, physicians are often independent contractors using hospital facilities via staff privileges. So, liability of hospitals for physician negligence has been limited. But this is changing as hospitals evolve and vicarious liability doctrine is expanded by the courts.…
4) Does this essay suggest that there is an undeclared war between doctors and lawyers? Do medical malpractice suits seem to improve or diminish the quality of medicine? Are lawyers to blame for the doctors decision to drive on?…
Negligence can be defined as the failure to properly care for an individual that is in your care. Doctors are not the only ones that can be held liable for treatments or procedures that the individual has undergone. Negligence occurs when care is not given to an individual that results in the death or injury. Since we have a lot of partnered care in health care everyone in those respected fields can be held liable for any treatment or service that is provided. Several health jobs that the individual may encounter are nurses, medical assistants, certified nurse’s aide, pharmacists, technicians, phlebotomists, and so forth. With each of these jobs negligence, can occur. The people in this are carrying out the doctors’ orders and sometimes if care is not given to the individual errors occur and it can be the difference of life, death, and injury. Family members would then be able to sue the doctor, the facility, or the nurse.…
Negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care. Negligence is an unintentional tort, which the tortfeasor neither wishes to bring the consequences of the act nor believes that they will occur.…
* Health care is a vast ever-changing demand in the United States. Because of that high demand, quality has been a concern for many patients. Each day patients put their health and trust in the hands of health care providers. Unfortunately, there have been times when the treatment provided, whether accidental or intentional, has caused harm to the patient. Patients who have experienced injury have the right to file a civil complaint against that provider that caused the injury. Some possible reasons for civil complaints are that personal information for a patient was shared without proper consent, negligence, or assault. These injuries are covered under Tort Law. This essay will identify a civil complaint process that patients may follow in the event of misconduct or incompetence by a provider. The role of the regulatory agencies to investigate the allegations of the misconduct will be discussed along with how they apply disciplinary actions if warranted. Potential criminal liabilities, risk management strategies, quality assurance programs to reduce the risk of liability and the process to follow in the event that charges are filed against a provider will all be identified.…
In a negligence suit, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant did not act as a reasonable person would have acted under the circumstances. The court will instruct the jury as to the standard of conduct required of the defendant. For example, a defendant sued for negligent driving is judged according to how a reasonable person would have driven in the same circumstances. A plaintiff has a variety of means of proving that a defendant did not act as the hypothetical reasonable person would have acted. The plaintiff can show that the defendant violated a statute designed to protect against the type of injury that occurred to the plaintiff. Also, a plaintiff might introduce expert witnesses, evidence of a customary practice, or circumstantial evidence.…
Negligence is the failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do under certain circumstances or taking action which a reasonable person would not (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/negligence). Negligence also assesses the human choice to engage in harmful conduct as proper or improper. This is because choices are deemed improper only if they breach a preexisting obligation to avoid and repair carelessly inflicted harm to others. In some instances, a statute or other law may define specific duties, such as the duty of a person to rescue another. Professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, are also required to uphold a standard of care expected in their profession. When a professional fails to uphold such a standard of care, the professional may be liable for malpractice (doctors are liable for medical malpractice and lawyers are liable for legal malpractice), which is based on the law of negligence.…