analyzing nursing malpractice court cases, lexis-nexis on-line, policy development[1]

8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]

1/13

emw 1

Analyzing Nursing

Malpractice Court Cases,Lexis-Nexis On-Line,

Public Policy Making ProcessN353 Dr. E. Watson

2009-2010


2/13

emw 2

Analyzing Legal Cases

Darling v. Charleston Community Hospital, 211 N.E.2d 53(Illinois, 1965)

Plaintiffparty bringing lawsuit--Darling

Defendantparty against whom the case is filedCharleston Community Hospital

Set of law reporters which publish opinions and decisions of state/federal courts

State and dates are last **a state listed in the citation indicates the highest court

within the state heard the case

This case was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1965 and can be located in

volume 211 of the Northeast Reporter, Second Series, beginning on page 53


3/13

emw 3

Elements of Malpractice

Lexis/Nexis/Westlaw Assignment

Review Opinion Section of Selected Case

Chin v. St. Barnabas Medical Center

Article Review: Duty

Breach of Duty

Foreseeability

Causation (proximate cause) Injury

Damages


4/13

emw 4

Cause of Action Elements

1. Dutynurse patient relationship and employment.

Basis of duty-owed concept (reliance relationship).

One person depending on another for quality and

competent careDuty of care: duty to patient must be shown, scope of duty

must be proven

2. Breach of duty owed the patientinvolves a deviation inthe standard of care by eitherdoing something that

should not have been done or nothing was done when

it should have been done (e.g. medication omissions)


5/13

emw 5

3. Foreseeabilitycertain events can be reasonablyexpected to cause specific resultsCHALLENGE: to

show that one could reasonable foresee a certain

result based on the facts as they existed at the time

of the occurrence rather than what could be said onretrospective thinking and results


6/13

emw 6

4. Causationrequires injury to be directly caused by breach ofduty owed to patient. Two types:

1. Proximate Causebuilds on foreseeability by 1) attemptingto determine how far liability of defendant extends forconsequences following a negligent act; 2) looks at

standard of care; 3) fairly easy to prove as long as result isdirectly related look at intervening variable (s)

2. Cause-In-Fact: breach of duty caused harm/injurymed error

Tests to determine Cause-In-Fact

a. But-for-Testanswers the question if the act or omission is adirect cause of the injury sustained


7/13

emw 7

b. Substantial Factor testused when several causes occur tobring about a given injury. Test is not to determine certainty, butto develop a causal link between actions and injury. Test asks ifthe defendants act or omission was a substantial factor incausing the ultimate harm/injuryif yescause in fact.

C. Alternative Causesmore than one person is accused ofnegligenceplaintiff must prove that the injury was caused byone of the defendantsburden shifts to defendants to showwho actually caused the harmif none can prove innocenceall may be liablenot often used by courts


8/13

emw 8

5. Injury/Harm3 typesa. Physicalpain and suffering

b. Financial

c. Emotionalusually not allowed as sole basis for lawsuit,

exceptions exist

HCPs must take steps to assess a particular patients susceptibility

to foreseeable adverse reactions and take steps to reduce

themas in previous shown lawsuits


9/13

emw 9

6. Damagesa.General damages: pain and suffering-past, present, future and

any permanent disability or disfigurement

b. Special damages: losses and expensespast, present-future(life careplanner)

c.Emotional damages: if there is physical damagealsoexceptions

d.Punitive damages: malicious misconduct. Not usually covered byprofessional insurances. Intended to punish individual.

e. Compensatory damages: general and special damages

f. Total Damages Award: based on % of defendants actions incausing harm


10/13

emw 10

Res Ipsa Loquitor

the thing speaks for itself A. rules of evidencenegligence without all 6 elements

--no expert testimony is needed

--plaintiff cannot prove how or who caused the injury

--injury is the type that in the absence of negligence, injury would not

have occurred

Ybarralandmark case

--usually occurs in ORunconscious patient, infant

--e.g. sponge or instrument left in patient


11/13

emw 11

b. Causes of Action Elements:1. Injury does not occur without someones negligence

2. Accident must be caused by an agency within exclusive

control of defendant

3. Accident must not have been due to any voluntary

action/contribution on part of the plaintiff

Sides v. St. Anthonys Medical Center

Supreme Court of Missouri Opinion 8/05/08


12/13

emw 12

California Legislative Process

Bills are considered and laws enacted

2 Houses

40 Senators

80 Assembly Members

Discuss:

Overview of Legislative Process

Guide to Legislative ProcessResearching California Public Policy: Tracing a

Legislative and Regulatory History


13/13

emw 13

analyzing nursing malpractice court cases, lexis-nexis on-line, policy development[1]

Documents