Dr. Dalitsch Case Summary

On 8/3/15 worker spoke with Ms. Lisa Welch, SW at the VA, for the purpose of gathering information on Mr. James Kimbrell's current situation. Ms. Welch stated the VA had been involved with Mr. Welch for some time. During their involvement, Ms. Stacy Grey, primary caregiver and rents a trailer from Mr. Kimbrell. She refuses to pay rent but transports him to doctor appointments and grocery shopping. However, she charges him money for transportation. and when he buys groceries, she puts personal belongings into the buggy. Mr. Kimbrell is blind and is not aware of what he purchases until he gets home and she starts taking groceries just purchased out of the home.

On December 30th, 2015 at 0357 hours Deputy Akins responded to a battery of a family member. When the Deputy arrived on the scene he was approached by Kimberly Corp and Tayia Corp who advised that John Paul Branfield Corp had punched them. Deputy Akins asked the victims to explain in detail what had happened.

The case study of Crowe v. Provost, 374 S. W. 2d. 645 (Tenn. 1963), was a highly-anticipated court case for the 1960’s. The following list pertaining to the example of what went wrong and by whom. The first patient appointment opens a file with the patient’s basic information and any allergies including medication(s). This would typically be done with the receptionist. If this was not the doctor’s first time seeing this patient, then the physician should have checked the chart to see if there were any allergies to anything including medication, such as, Penicillin and Cosa-Terrabon. Referring to the Crowe vs. Provost, the child was then rushed back into the doctor’s office with worsening symptoms, the nurse should have listened to the mother. The nurse, could have instructed the mother to take the worsening child to the nearest Emergency Department. The nurse advising the doctor, “That she thought the child was about the same as when the physician saw him earlier in the day” (Flight, M., 2011, page 5-6) was not a good idea. The doctor could have been brought in for an examination of the ailing patient. The receptionist returning from her lunch should not have been a signal for the nurse to leave for any reason with the patient getting worse. Again, the patient and mother should have been instructed to go to the nearest emergency room. The receptionist should not have been left alone with an ailing patient. Mistakenly, the receptionist calling the doctor first and

Two visits with James Rusk, and his paramour Sherri Heath were held on February 2, 2017 and February 7, 2017. Both visits took place at James’s residence located at 750 East 22nd Street, Erie, Pennsylvania. Mr. Rusk’s home is an apartment complex. Mr. Rusk lives in an apartment downstairs, while his brother Carl Hannah lives in the upper level of the apartment.

With regard to Ms. Green’s claims against O’Brien, it is apparent that Ms. Green was O’Brien’s client, and that O’Brien owed Ms. Green a duty. Should this case proceed to trial we do not anticipate that we would argue to a jury that O’Brien did not neglect this duty. Rather, there are serious questions as to whether “the negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the client.” Kendall v. Rogers, 181 Md. 606, 611-12 (1943). Indeed, the estate will have to demonstrate that Ms. Green would have prevailed in proving that one or both health care provider defendants committed medical negligence that caused her to fall into the diabetic coma.

The plaintiff Yolanda Pinnelas has evidence of a documented necrotic tissue injury that resulted from a Mitomycin infiltration that was not appropriately monitored on the night in question. There is no documentation that would support adequate monitoring up to the point of the infiltration. However, there is evidence proving that there was a nursing staff shortage on a unit with a high census of sick patients. The defense could claim that Jeffery Chambers did not have adequate rest and his fatigue contributed to the inadequate monitoring of Yolanda Pinnelas. I major defense for the plaintiff is if it is not charted it did not happen. The documentation in this case study does not paint a clear picture of events that took place and leave

Dr. Boggio should have considered adhere to the code presented in 3.04 of Avoid Harm before he thought of getting involved as an expert witness against his patient. He should have considered Conflict of Interest (3.06) with his patient. He violated the Specialty Guidelines, sub-category Impartiality and Fairness (1.02), stated that forensic practitioners should be unbiased and impartial in the information they provided as professionals including unfairly bias the results of the

The Plaintiffs felt that since the hospital was licensed and accredited that they should be held responsible for their employees and their actions. It states in the regulations that any infraction of the bylaws imposes liability for the injury. At any time if Dr. Alexander had questions or concerns he could have reached out to an expert in this field to consult

A civil suit is commonly derived from a private party or individual, who alleges damages from duty of care. Once a civil case begins, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove, with evidence, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Conversely, the defendant must prove their affirmative defense against documented allegations. The Oliver versus Brock case proves the importance of supporting evidence as opposed to hearsay statements, to prove the truth of the matter. In the Oliver versus Brock case, Cathy (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Bryan Whitfield Memorial Hospital of Demopolis and the treating physicians Dr. F.S. Whitfield, Dr. Paul Ketcham and Dr. E.C. Brock (Defendant) for negligence of care. Analyzing the facts in

According to Chief Justice Phillips’s opinion, the plaintiff, Sampson, needed to raise “a genuine issue of material fact that defendant Hospital was vicariously liable under the theory of ostensible agency for an emergency room physician’s negligence.” For that reason, we grant the BMHS’s request for writ of error due to the failure that the plaintiff was unable to establish vicarious liability based on the facts that the hospital had taken the reasonable and necessary steps to show its patients that the practicing physicians at the hospital were not employees or agents of the hospital (Phillips, 1997).

A 76 years old woman who was described as a healthy and active for her age Helena Lambert, from Ceston, BC was killed by an adverse interaction between two prescription drugs which was overlooked by health professionals she trusted, according to CBC. Helena’s doctor prescribed allopurinol to treat her gout however, Helena was also on mecartopurine, an immunosuppressant for colitis. After six weeks starting her new medication, she developed a blister on her foot. Her son took her to Creston Valley Hospital, where doctors found out the interaction between the two drugs causing Helena immune system to shut down. Her son said his mom suffered before dying from the infection and respiratory failure.

The plaintiff in Ard v. East Jefferson General Hospital, stated on 20 May, she had rang the nurses station to inform the nursing staff that her husband was experiencing symptoms of nausea, pain, and shortness of breathe. After ringing the call button for several times her spouse received his medication. Mrs. Ard noticed that her husband continued to have difficulty breathing and ringing from side to side, the patient spouse rang the nursing station for approximately an hour and twenty-five minutes until the defendant (Ms. Florscheim) enter the room and initiated a code blue, which Mr. Ard didn’t recover. The expert witness testified that the defendant failed to provide the standard of care concerning the decease and should have read the physician’s progress notes stating patient is high risk upon assessment and observation. The defendant testified she checked on the patient but no documentation was noted. The defendant expert witness disagrees with breech of duty, which upon cross-examination the expert witness agrees with the breech of duty. The district judge, upon judgment, the defendant failed to provide the standard of care (Pozgar, 2012, p. 215-216) and award the plaintiff for damages from $50,000 to $150,000 (Pozgar, 2012, p. 242).

The admissibility of expert testimony from the past to the present, The Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 702 (1975) the revision of Rule 702 (2000) and (2010), Frye v United States (1923), Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), and Kumho Tire Co., v Carmichael (1999).

Dr. Bekanich mentioned that the clinically integrated network of Seton ACO, Seton Health Care Alliance, and DCHA consists of 2,270 providers, 2,213 practitioners/ practices, and 57 facilities. Then, Dr. Bekanich provided a breakdown of the levels of Case Management. And, he then talked about the key performance measures for the following areas:

I feel that Dr. P has a case in this situation. I feel he has the ability to sue for compensatory damages. I would argue that Dr. P is a public figure. As you said he is the foremost academic on exposure to violence and the human psyche. Since he is a public figure and his work is important to public interest. Because of this we have to prove malice. In this case we also have to determine how defamation of DR. P is present. We have to answer how his reputation is being harmed, how his standing in the community is being harmed.