Catherine Coyne Case Summary

SC placed call to Pa and spoke with Bill Pa’s spouse who reported that doing ok. But she has come combative lately and verbal abusive. Bill spoke at length about her behavior and the impact it has on him. Bill is offended when Pa makes disparaging remarks about him and calls him out of his name. Bill reported that he believes Pa needs a medication review and a change in meds. Because the medication that supposed to help with her outbursts and combative behavior is not as effective anymore. He reported that Pa fell on 11/11/15 but did not need medical treatment because she did not sustain any injuries (just soreness). The SC inquired about Bill handle his frustration and when Pa becomes abuse or combative and he state he just deals with it because he loves her “and no matter what that’s his wife and he’s going to do right by her” so he talks to

It frustrates me what Dr. Anna Pou had to go through with the lawsuits of the Memorial Medical Center incident. As Healthcare professionals, being sued for making the rightful decision for the patient and the hospital is unjust. Healthcare professionals like Dr. Pou, have taken the Hippocratic oath, and one of the promises made within that oath is “first, do no harm”. Hospital’s should not be so quick to make such an important decision of pressing charges to their faculty; more trust should be placed in them. In addition, she made it clear her intentions were just to ‘‘help’’ patients ‘‘through their pain,’’ on national television. While her actions might not be seen as the best decision, she made one and did her best to make the rightful one under such poor circumstances that were out of her control.

The steps required for an individual to enter physical therapy care post injury under workers’ compensation are the responsibility of both the individual and the employer. When an individual is injured at work it is their responsibility to report the injury to their employer. An individual has one year from the date of injury to file a claim for compensation, however for an occupational disease, an individual has up to three years from the first manifestation of symptoms to file a claim (We’re Sorry You Were Injured, 2001). Although there is an extended period of time for filing a claim it is best to do so as soon as the

The hillside strangler killings involved the suspects of Kenneth bianchi and Angelo Bono. It can be questioned if Kenneth actually committed the murders, it may have been Angelo committing the killing and Kenneth just aiding him in the process. During trail Kenneth claimed to have dissociative identity disorder, an illness where there are multiple personalities inside your brain and your primary personality has no idea that they are existent. Kenneth was found to not have this illness after examination but was the examination correct with its findings. Kenneth claimed to have been lying about having the illness after

“Medical malpractice claims and lawsuits deal with Improper, unskilled, or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional. Negligence is the predominant theory of liability concerning allegations of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of Tort Law. Since the 1970s, medical malpractice has been a controversial social issue. Physicians have complained about the large number of malpractice suits and have urged legal reforms to curb large damage awards, whereas tort attorneys have argued that negligence suits are an effective way of compensating victims of negligence and of policing the medical profession. A person who alleges negligent medical malpractice must

Under the circumstances in which the case reached the Illinois Supreme Court, it was held that the verdict against the hospital should be sustained if the evidence supported the verdict on any one or more of the 20 allegations of negligence. Allegations asserted that the hospital was negligent in its failure to (1) provide a sufficient number of trained nurses for bedside care for all patients at all times, in this case, nurses who were capable of recognizing the progressive gangrenous condition of the plaintiff's right leg, and (2) failure of its nurses to bring the patient's condition to the attention of the hospital administration and staff so that adequate consultation could be secured and the condition

The gentleman is staggering all over the place and seems very confused and talking nonsense. When the nursing staff tries to take his vitals, he becomes combative and vomits on himself. The staff thinking that the gentleman is intoxicated they call a taxi to escort him home. The gentleman never made it home; he was brought back to hospital unconscious. The gentleman was never examined or seen by a Physician. “Paramedics bring him back to the emergency room and note that he has a large hematoma on his scalp with crepitus (a crunchy feeling) on palpation. The emergency physician notes this and arranges for a stat CT of the head which reveals a depressed skull fracture and a large subdural hematoma. While awaiting neurosurgical consultation and operative decompression of the intracranial bleed, he has a sudden cardiopulmonary arrest and cannot be resuscitated. He is pronounced dead. His blood alcohol level, delivered to the emergency physician after he expired, was .07 percent, and thus, below the legal limit for driving” (B.G., n.d.). The gentleman was a victim of a violent assault a few hours earlier. The gentleman’s family sued the hospital for violating EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) provisions that require an appropriate medical screening exam of all Emergency Room patients.

Standard of care refers to the degree of care that a similar healthcare professional would apply under the same circumstances while taking into account any unexpected complications or conditions. To put it simply, if another healthcare professional with the same or similar training takes the same course of action as the healthcare professional at issue given the information known and the exact situation, the professional is seen as meeting the standard of care.

As you know I have been trying to meet with you to discuss your case with you since January of this year. Specifically, you had appointments scheduled for January 20, 2017, January 24, 2017, February 9, 2017, February 24, 2017 and, March 21, 2017. You failed to keep any of these appointments. The reason I wanted to meet with you was to explain why I was not interested in pursuing this case. I wanted to give you the respect of a face to face explanation of the issues I found in your medical records, which I believe will make it impossible to recover substantial compensation in this matter.

by Correctional Officers Scarppi, Davis, R.C. King and Sergeant Femi, who were correctional officers assigned to work in the medical department.

Pursuant to Md. Code (1984, 2014 Repl. Vol., 2015 Suppl.), § 10-222(h)(3) of the State Government Article (“SG”), we may only reverse or modify the decision of an administrative agency if that decision is:

FACTS Carey sustained injuries in an automobile accident for which he received monies from the original tortfeasor. The Plaintiff, due to his injuries, was referred by his doctor to Stephen Connelly, a physical therapist at Indiana Physical Therapy, Inc. Connelly preformed a manipulation technique, “compressions”” on the Plaintiff during his third session which caused a great deal of discomfort. Connelly “laid his chest across my arms and used his body to put force on my arms and push” (App. at 124.) Carey claimed the therapist only stopped when he “broke out in tears and screamed out in pain.”

On April 3, 2015, Tammy Cleveland sued Gregory C. Perry, a doctor at Buffalo General and Kaleida Health the company that owns both hospitals involved in the death of her husband, Michael Cleveland. Tammy is accusing them of “negligent” care resulting in her husband’s death. The law suit claims that the “defendants’ alleged actions and/or inactions were morally culpable, actuated by evil and reprehensible motives, malicious, reckless, gross, wanton and/or in reckless disregard for her husband’s rights and her family’s rights.” (Dudzik, 2015) The defendants are contesting the case.

Issue: Whether, (1) Dr. Kuris’ expert testimony is relevant as an expert opinion evidence of Cavallo’s character under the ruling of Rule 47? (2) Did Dr. Kuris’ expert testimony satisfy the special limitations on expert evidence under the ruling of Rule 56 (2) and New Jersey case law? (3) Did Dr. Kuris’ expert testimony achieve general acceptance in the scientific community to convince the court that it is reasonably

I evaluated the following case study from Medical, Psychosocial and Vocational Aspects of Disabilities the fourth edition, Brodwin, Siu, Howard, Brodwin, & Du (2014) and presented a case argument including a vocational argument in favor of La Shaun Jackson’s award for Social Security Disability Income (SSDI).