The Hill v. Ohio County involves a wrongful death case in which the hospital refused to admit Juanita Monroe. She thought she was in labor. As a result, she delivered her child at home without medical attention and died shortly after giving birth. The plaintiff was Lorene Hill, administer of Monroe’s estate, against Ohio Country Hospital. The question arises whether there was a breach of duty by the hospital in accordance to the institution’s admission policy.
Case Name and Citation HAYDEN vs. UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME 716 N.E.2d 603 (1999) Court of Appeals of Indiana Summary of the Key Facts in the Case On September 16, 1995 William Hayden and Letitia Hayden attended a football game that was played on the University of Notre Dame’s campus. William and Letitia were season ticket holders with the university that sat in their reserved seats, which were located in the south endzone behind the goalpost.
Clayton Lockett was executed using a three drug cocktail (Midazolam, Pancuronium, and Potassium Chloride) during his execution after being injected he awakened and died a horribly painful death 40 minutes later. The state of Oklahoma was investigated as to why he woke up during the process. They soon sound out that the needle that was put in his vein didn’t fully penetrate his vein. After the investigation the state of Oklahoma had a new protocol to follow.
Fact: This class action involves a multi-faceted attack against certain medication and seclusion policies allegedly followed at the May and Austin Units of the Boston State Hospital (Hospital), a state institution for the mentally ill. The named plaintiffs, all either voluntary or involuntary patients at one time or another at these facilities, seek injunctive relief for the class, and award of money damages for themselves. Plaintiffs' basic grievance is that the defendants, all of whom have served on the Hospital staff, maintained policies of forced medication and involuntary seclusion in non-emergency circumstances. Plaintiffs allege that these policies infringed on the constitutional rights of Hospital patients.
The plaintiff lives in Michigan with her husband and children and was undergoing marital difficulties. She had intended to file for divorce. December 6, 1963 the defendant appeared at her home and introduced himself as “Dr. Wolodzko.” He had never met the plaintiff or husband prior to the visit and he stated that the husband had called him. The plaintiff testified that the defendant told her that he was there to just ask about the husband’s back and that he never told her he was a psychiatrist.
Can April Feldman (Feldman) be liable for the jogger’s injuries, when she properly restrained the dog and had no reasonable suspicion that her dog would harm an individual? Under Vermont Law, an owner of a domestic animal is not liable for injuries sustained by third parties, however there are exceptions. Restatement (First) of Torts § 509 (1938) Generally, “the possessor of a domestic animal is not subject to liability of others, unless the owner has reason to know of the animal’s dangerous propensities abnormal to its class.” Id. Feldman would mostly not be held liable for the jogger’s injuries because she did not have responsible suspicion that her dog, Brady was a probably source of danger.
The case against Hubert Morgan for the “murder and felonious assault” on correctional officer William Hesson was an appropriate case for a plea bargain. Had Morgan not agreed to the plea bargain, he could have been charged with life without chance of parole for kneeing the correctional officer in the chest while they were both voluntarily wrestling in the laundry room. The plea bargain attempted to reduce the sentence to a maximum of ten years in prison for Hesson’s death. Although I disagree with the charges, it was much more appropriate for Morgan to be sentenced to seven years than to a life sentence without parole. However, even still it would have been more accurate to charge Morgan as a juvenile because he was only seventeen
You are using the format of “PIE” to document Ms. Dorothy’s case. You have identified the priority problem of acute pain that Ms. Dorothy has, which is an indeed problem for Ms. Dorothy who just recovered from abdominal surgery being performed yesterday. It is possible for Ms. Dorothy to carry out other actions such as turning the position, using incentive spirometry and so on when her pain is under the control. Using incentive spirometry is very important for Ms. Dorothy to expend her lungs, and then enhance her breathing. Also, risk for infection or ineffective breathing pattern is very important for patients who have done the surgery.
The issue is whether M. Bega’s conduct was outrageous and intolerable. This element is satisfied when the outrageousness requirement "is aimed at limiting frivolous suits and avoiding litigation in situations where only bad manners and mere hurt feelings are involved." Id. "It is insufficient for a defendant to have acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal." Russo v. White 241 Va. 23. Rather, "liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."
For most companies, a negligence case can become very costly even leading to bankruptcy. Consequently, do to increase in consumer injuries from defective products, the government created the he Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) as a means to help manage consumer protection. Furthermore, the recall initiative addresses the situation of informing and/or removing consumer and companies about defective or dangerous products in the marketplace. What’s more, within the CPSC, various statutes passed by Congress, help in regulating safety for a variety of industries; for instance, the Poison Prevention Packaging Act protects children under age five from poisoning caused to open containers; or the more obscure Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act establishes safety standards associated with pools and spas dangers (Seaquist, 2012).
The court ruling of the Madrigal v. Quilligan case further illustrated injustice. Dr. Rosenfeld had met with Antonia Hernandez, a new lawyer, and discussed the crimes being committed at the LAC+USC hospital. She assembled ten women that were victims of the forced sterilizations, leading to a class action lawsuit against the hospital. The argument was that the women's’ rights were violated as their constitutional right to bear children had been violated.
The author seeks to place the responsibility of punishing innocent people in the correctional system, onto that of the state. The role of the correctional system in criminal justice is to punish and rehabilitate, but why happens when someone is placed in there through a wrongful conviction. Though various cases have different circumstances, the author states that the one constant factor in all wrongful conviction cases is the state. By expanding upon existing arguments relevant to state crime the author seeks to expand the readers understanding of wrongful convictions, purely from a criminological point of view. By doing so the article will add to the readers understanding of the tragic scenario of wrongful conviction.
The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered, the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant states, in effect, she wishes for her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to accurately reflect her character of military service.