Address all the following in a PowerPoint presentation. Provide references of less than five years

Read You Be the Judge presented at the end of Chapter 5 (Guido, p. 65-66) which begins, "The patient had an apparent cardiac event at home... and answer the following questions:

What evidence would you collect from the clinic to determine what standard of care was delivered to this patient both before he was seen and at the time he was seen in the clinic? What might the family's attorney allege in a supplemental report? How would one decide the standard of care for this patient? How would you decide the outcome of this case?

Read the case study You be the Judge, presented at the end of Chapter 6 (Guido, p. 94) which begins, "The day after surgery the nurse removed a drainage tube..." and answer these questions:

Do the facts of the case support the plaintiff's reliance on res ipsa loquitur? Does the fact that the defense did produce expert witness testimony negate a successful res ipsa loquitur outcome? What other facts would you need to determine if the nurse's actions were negligent? If applicable, should damages be assessed? How would you decide the case?

Read the case study You be the Judge, presented at the end of Chapter 7 (Guido, p. 112) which begins, "The patient was in surgery to remove moles from her back..." and answer the following questions:

Were there damages that should be paid to this patient for negligence? Who should be the individuals responsible for these damages? For example, is the surgeon the individual most liable for the damages owed to the patient? Are there any defenses that the defendants could cite that would mitigate their liability to this patient? How should the court decide the damage awards in this instance?

First scenario

The patient had an apparent cardiac event at home involving chest pain radiating into his left arm and accompanied by diaphoresis and shortness of breath. He phoned the clinic asking for a next-day appointment, telling the nurse he was having pain and numbness in both his arms and wrists, which he believed was caused by computer use at work. The next day he came to the clinic and told the admitting nurse that he had had chest pain, but none recently. He repeated this denial of recent chest pain to the nurse practitioner. The nurse practitioner ordered an electrocardiogram and chest x-ray, both of which were seen as within normal findings. He returned to work the following day, collapsed, and was taken by ambulance to the nearest emergency center. Cardiac catheterization was not successful, and the patient subsequently died. His family filed a wrongful death action, blaming the clinic nurses for his demise.

Second Scenario

The day after surgery a nurse removed a drainage tube from a patient's surgical wound. Four months later a computerized tomography (CT) scan revealed that a 4.25-inch piece of plastic tubing had been left at the surgical site. The patient underwent a second surgery to have this piece of tubing removed. The patient sued the hospital and the nurse for negligence. When questioned during the trial, the nurse testified that she had used no excessive force or speed in pulling the tubing. The patient's attorney disputed this fact, but introduced no expert witness testimony, relying on the doctrine of res Ipsa loquitur to explain the retained tubing. The nurse's expert witness testified that there was no departure from the standard of care in the nurse's actions.

Third Scenario

The patient was in surgery to remove moles from her back and left eyebrow. She was lightly sedated and was receiving oxygen. When the surgeon activated the Bovie instrument to remove the mole near her eyebrow, the spark caused a flash fire that was augmented by the supplemental oxygen that the patient was receiving. The surgical team responded immediately and the fire was quickly extinguished. The patient, however, incurred second-degree burns to the left side of her face, leaving permanent scars and reducing vision in her left eye. She filed a lawsuit for negligence and fraudulent concealment against the surgeon, nurse anesthetist, and hospital. The initial trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages for malpractice and an additional $425,000 in damages for fraudulently concealing facts about the incident from the patient. At the appellate level, the defendants argued that there was no concealment of the incident in that they did what was required of them, namely that they informed the patient that there had been a fire, detailed the injuries that were caused by the fire, and recommended appropriate treatment options to her.