PROBLEM #1

On August 15,Yr-2,Sandra Day, 74, was admitted to the St. Jude Hospital in Waymart, Pa.Day was there for a series of maladies - heart problems, diabetes, early on-set dementia, and fluid in the lungs.She was assigned to the critical care ward.

Starting August 18, Day's nurse on the 8-4 shift was Melanie Weiss.Weiss had the option of using restraints on Day, because Day's multiple conditions led her to throw her body around, risking injury.Weiss did not opt for the restraints, deciding to first observe Day by regularly checking her in the room.During the morning, there was no problem.Day was seated in an upright chair next to her bed.

After lunch on August 18, Weiss returned to the room and Day was on the floor, writhing in an apparent seizure.She was bleeding from the head.Day's daughter Hortense Burke came in, saw her mother, and became overwrought.Sandra Day was rushed to the ER and then to another hospital.In a coma for two weeks, Day then died.

Day's daughter Hortense has brought suit against St. Jude Hospital and Weiss, on behalf of her mother's estate, for wrongful death and medical malpractice.The claim is that (a) Sandra Day should have been in restraints; and (b) even with no restraints, there was a duty to monitor her every 10 minutes, and this duty was breached because Weiss did not keep to that tight a schedule; and the fall caused the come and death.The joint defense of the hospital and Weiss is that the decision to leave Day in the chair was reasonable, especially in light of the regular checks by the nurse; and that the coma was a result not of the fall but of internal bleeding in the brain [cranial bleeding] that existed when the mother entered the hospital.

Trial takes place in December,Yr-0 [the current year].

Question # 1

Nurse Weiss, in the weeks after the fall, attended a two-day training on "specialized care for elderly, fall-risk, patients."

Group of answer choices

a) The evidence is admissible in plaintiff's case to prove a lack of knowledge on caring for such patients.

b) The evidence is admissible as an admission, by conduct, of a lack of knowledge on caring for such patients.

c) The evidence is inadmissible as having no relevance other than propensity.

d) The evidence is inadmissible as a matter of public policy.

Question 2

The attorney for Nurse Weiss seeks to call 8 dementia patients, each of whom was elderly and in her care at the hospital inYr-5.Each will say "Weiss came into my room every fifteen minutes, always making sure I was not woozy and likely to fall."

Group of answer choices

a) The evidence is inadmissible character, as it is in the nature of "did it once, did it again."

b) The evidence is inadmissible, as the elderly witnesses are automatically incompetent due to their dementia.

c) The evidence may be admissible as habit or routine practice.

d) The evidence may be admissible to show Weiss' motive.

Question 3

Nurse Weiss testified in a deposition in January,Yr-1, that she entered Ms. Day's room every fifteen minutes, the time required by internal hospital policy.The attorney for the Day estate has a sheet of paper dated 8/18/Yr-2, stating "Patient S. Day, visual checks" with times written on it.The times are 9:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., , 10:45 a.m., 10:55 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 1:20 p.m."

Group of answer choices

a) The note is admissible only if Weiss first testifies at trial.

b) The note is admissible only if it was the regular practice of the hospital to have such information charted.

c) If authenticated as having been written by Weiss, the note is admissible only for impeachment.

d) If authenticated as having been written by Weiss, the note is admissible against Weiss and against the hospital.

Question 4

The lawyers for the Day estate call Jacqueline Ross, who was a patient in the room next door to that of Ms. Day on August 18.She will testify that "I heard someone calling from the room next door.That person was saying 'I feel faint.'"

Group of answer choices

a) Ross' testimony is inadmissible, as it is conveying hearsay.

b) Ross' testimony is admissible as the statement of a party opponent.

c) Ross' testimony is admissible only if she can authenticate the voice of the speaker as being Ms. Day.

d) Ross' testimony is inadmissible, as she is repeating opinion testimony with no foundation.

Question 5

Assume for this question only that Ross is permitted to testify as described in question 7.May she be asked, on cross-examination, whether she received an all-expenses-paid vacation, from the lawyer for the estate, over the Christmas break in DecemberYr-2?

Group of answer choices

a) Yes, but if Ross denies this the defense is stuck with her answer.

b) Yes, to support a claim of witness bias.

c) Yes, but doing so opens the door to all of the witness' consistent statements.

d) Yes, as an attack on witness character.

Question 6

Assume for this question only that Ross is cross-examined about the vacation, and admits that she in fact was the beneficiary of the paid vacation.Ross gave an unsworn interview to the news media in September,Yr-2; and testified at a deposition in February,Yr-1; and in both she said basically what she testified to on direct.The estate's lawyer would like to bring in these statements on redirect.

Group of answer choices

a) Both prior statements are admissible for the truth.

b) Neither prior statement is admissible for its truth.

c) Only the sworn deposition is admissible for its truth.

d) Only the unsworn news interview is admissible for its truth.

Question 7

The lawyer for the estate calls Professor Jeannette Engler, a professor of critical care nursing at Tulsa State.Professor Engler will testify that she reviewed all records and depositions, drew upon her years in the field, and concluded that "it is clear that Nurse Weiss' state of mind was reckless or careless that day."

Group of answer choices

a) The testimony is improper, as it addresses an ultimate issue.

b) The testimony is improper, as it addresses the state of mind of a defendant.

c) The testimony is proper if reliable and helpful to understanding the expert's testimony.

d) The testimony is proper if reliable and helpful to determine a fact at issue.