Mr. Phalole Case Analysis

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

from the doctor. The health information technician has to track down that doctor. Also, the Billing department may receive requests from unknown insurance companies. When this happens, the Billing department gets Medical Records to act on their behalf. The Medical Records then has to obtain an authorization form from the patient in order to fulfill the unknown insurance company needs.

The boyfriend’s mother called her at work and told her the boyfriend had her car keys. Rodman told the mother to have the boyfriend call her at work. When he did, she informed him that she could not talk to him at her duty station, and he hung up on her. He called her back and left a number where he could be reached. She left the work area and went to the break room to call him. After returning to her duty station, Rodman got another telephone call from her boyfriend who told her to go downstairs to the lobby to meet him and pick up the keys. When she refused, he told her that if she did not come down he would come up to her department. Claimant left the department to confront her boyfriend, and, because her supervisor was at lunch in the hospital cafeteria, Rodman notified a co-worker, a registered nurse, that she was leaving. Rodman testified, “I didn’t want any kind of confrontation at the desk, so I went downstairs.” Before she left her desk, Rodman called the employer’s security guard and asked him to meet her in the lobby because she anticipated that a problem could develop. When Rodman got to the lobby, her boyfriend started yelling and forced her outside. In doing so, he tore her shirt. At this point the security guard arrived and observed them arguing. Rodman was in the passenger seat of her car. The security guard instructed the boyfriend to

Bifurcates the issue of forfeiture from the criminal trial in future cases. [Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(h)(5)]

The Third Circuit reversed and remanded the case for trial. The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that Suders had presented sufficient evidence for a trial to conclude that the supervisors had engaged in a "pattern of sexual harassment that was persuasive and regular." The appeals court disagreed with the District Court and ruled that a constructive discharge, if proved, constitutes a tangible employment action that renders an employer strictly liable and precludes recourse to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. The Court of Appeals remanded Suders claim for trial. The United State Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement on the question whether a constructive discharge brought about by supervisor harassment ranks as a tangible employment action and therefore precludes

On September 29, 2015 at 1:30 PM, School Resources officer D. Solomon called Mrs. K. Settles on the radio for to report to the 1100 Building.

Pittston’s lawyer once asked for a “motion to dismiss”, which means a legal document that asks the court to throw out a case, to deny the allegations. If Pittston filed a motion to dismiss, he was not necessarily required to file answers to deny the allegation. Fortunately, Judge Christie made decision of remove himself from the case since the president of the company was one of his old friend.

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).

Morris, 331 N.W.2d 48, 53 (N.D. 1983)); Florida v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 2012) (discussing the difference between actual and constructive possession); Brent v. State, 957 N.E.2d 648, 648, 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (holding that the defendant did not have actual or constructive possession of a bag of drugs located on the ground, beside a vehicle, that the defendant was in); Hunter v. Commonwealth, 690 S.E.2d 792, 794, 799 (Va. 2010) (holding that the evidence would have supported a charge of constructive possession of a firearm when the defendant/passenger stated that the gun located in the driver’s glovebox was his, but he was not charged with that crime); Martinez v. State, 152 P.3d 1237, 1243 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the defendant’s case must be reversed because he was not aware of the required mental state to plead guilty to constructive possession); Campbell v. People, 73 P.3d 11, 14 (Colo. 2003) (holding that the State must prove that the accused had actual or constructive possession of the drug); Washington v. McPherson, 46 P.3d 284, 291 (Wash. 2002) (holding that the defendant had actual possession of drugs found in another person’s pocket under the accomplice liability theory); Sims v. Alabama, 733 So. 2d 926, 929 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that the defendant had actual possession of the drugs located under the driver’s seat of a vehicle he

When asked, the defendant first stated that the plastic container contained "crack that belonged to her friend." The substance was then tested and was positive for cocaine (trace amounts). The test was conducted using a field presumptive

She stayed next to patients when they were in pain and comforted them. She administered the penicillin to Hodman because she genuinely cared for her patients and wanted what was best for them. However, she communicated with the participants in a deceiving manner. Although Nurse Evers explained the procedure in understandable terms, she was not transparent about their “purposes, risks, and expected benefits. to withdraw at any time from the research” (Belmont Report, 1979).

In March of 2004, a doctor at the Wyoming Medical Center had been reported by one of the nurses for leaving an operating room during a surgery. Narotzky v. Natrona County Memorial Hosp. Bd. Of Trustees, 610 F.3d 561 (10th Cir. 2010). He had left Robert Griffin, a physician’s assistant, who had authorization to assist in surgeries but only under direct supervision of a physician. Id. After receiving the filed complaint, the Medical Center launched an investigation and eventually terminated a group of physicians. Id.

The district nursing team were now to be responsible for the wound care of an ulcer on the sole of her right foot on her impending discharge. She had previously attended the practice nurse and a podiatry service based within her local clinic. Due to a change in circumstances, she was now clearly housebound for the near future due to mobility issues. Prior to an arranged visit, the patient had called the nurse to advise her that she was pyrexial and was experiencing a pain in her right foot that was different from her normal neuropathic pain, which was often problematic. She was also finding it difficult to mobilise and was disinclined for diet but was taking oral fluids.

On June 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed a timely appeal of the dismissal with the Wyoming Office of Administration and Information.  A hearing was held on January 7 and 8, 2008.  At the hearing Bob Doctor lied under oath regarding material facts of the case. On February 7, 2008, Plaintiff was ordered reinstated and the dismissal of June 5, 2007 was reversed, which entitled Plaintiff to back pay, fees, and costs, and reinstated the property right to his job.

This can be read as a key ethical question to many healthcare case studies because of the errors and situations that occur. One of the explanations for this occurrence may be the overwhelming workload, chaotic environment and lack of individual attention prescribed to each patient. These issues can cause a disruption to the ethical principle of Beneficence. The principle of Beneficence calls to action the act of helping others and having compassion for the patients. This principle can be threatened when a doctor or caretaker is overworked and unable to effectively manage the series of patients and work they are assigned to take on. I believe that the admitting doctor did not initially catch the error of not calling for the specific drug need because he was more focused on getting Mr. Londborg stable and on the medication to treat his initial and present condition before worrying about the preventative medication. In addition, the doctor was so focused on helping everyone all at once that he was blind to the small details and loose ends that needed to be taken care