-
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
-
8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]
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
-
8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]
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
-
8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]
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)
-
8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]
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
-
8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]
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
-
8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]
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
-
8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]
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
-
8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]
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
-
8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]
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
-
8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]
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
-
8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]
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
-
8/7/2019 Analyzing Nursing Malpractice Court Cases, Lexis-Nexis On-Line, Policy Development[1]
13/13
emw 13