Good afternoon Amy, I took the applicant's deposition on Wednesday, October 14, 2015, in the applicant's attorney’s office. The applicant’s attorney did not have a demand. He stated that the applicant was more interested in “getting better”. The applicant’s attorney stated that he would like to get this case moving and suggested that we go to an Agreed Medical Examiner. He recommended Drs. Gleiberman, Halbridge, and Suzuki. I would not recommend the use of an Agreed Medical Examiner. It does not appear that we will be able to settle this case without going to an independent doctor. I would recommend a panel qualified medical examination after the next deposition. At the beginning of the deposition I had three main goals: 1. Determine the reason that the date of injury had changed. 2. Find out about the applicant playing soccer. 3. Determine if there was another activity that the applicant participated in that could have caused the injury. I am pleased to say that I did determine the answers to these questions. …show more content…
De Carlo. His last appointment was 9/29/15. I do not have this report. According to the applicant, the doctor changed his modified duties from not being able to lift 10 pounds and no prolonged sitting to no lifting more than 20 pounds. I will verify this once I have the report. His doctor recommended the applicant to have acupuncture and physical therapy. He said that there has not been any discussion of surgeries or injections. He takes Naprosyn three times a week. He claims that he began having radiating pain into his knee since he started treating at Southland Spine. He claims this pain occurs three times per month. He is also receiving chiropractic care and medication which he claims is beneficial. The applicant did have an x-ray of his back. He claimed that the doctor told him his back was not aligned properly. He has not told his treating doctors that he helps his father on a daily
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
It would have been helpful to have his signature on the consent. Physicians can get too relaxed with consents and risks and benefits and documentation in the medical record. It goes by unnoticed until a patient has a complication and the physician is unable to prove what they did. Or maybe sometimes, they really did not get informed consent. The plaintiff would have still have an injuries caused by the procedure, but would likely have been considered an unfortunate bad outcome, but not negligence.
11. Similarly the reasoning for the refusal to disclose Dr. Rigney’s radiological reviews is equally misleading. While Plaintiff appreciates that Defendant Medic East has advised the court that Dr. Rigney will not be called as a witness in the instant matter, an admission Plaintiff intends to enforce should Defendant Medic East suddenly change their mind later, it does not change the fact that said reports were supplied to Dr.
Doshi, 2017). Doshi was able to support the fact that it had limited responsibility in the patient’s care, by performing and interpreting the sonogram and thus the motion for summary judgment was properly granted (Neyman v. Doshi, 2017). In the case against Sorkin, the plaintiff’s burden in proving medical malpractice was only to bring enough evidence that a reasonable person could deduct that it was more likely than not that injury was caused by the defendant (Neyman v. Doshi, 2017). The main supporting factor that lost the case for Sorkin was the fact that he could not refute the suggestion by the plaintiff’s expert that if chemotherapy would have been initiated sooner, then that patient’s outcome could have been better (Neyman v. Doshi, 2017). Had perhaps the patient been diagnosed and treatment began earlier her chance of recovery could have increased and the incidence of suffering reduced; therefore Sorkin diminished the patient’s chance of an improved outcome (Neyman v. Doshi,
Case Citation: Gallagher v. Cayuga Medical Center 151 AD 3d 1349 - NY: Appellate Div., 3rd Dept. 2017 Background: In this civil case Timothy W. Gallagher is the appellant, and Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) is the respondents. The case took place in the appellate division of the supreme court of New York, division three. The plaintiff’s complaint was that Cayuga Medical Center had asserted medical malpractice, negligence, wrongful death and emotional distressed.
As you know, we previously have taken the testimony of the claimant and a lay witness for the employer. We do not have an IME in this case but we are taking the testimony of the attending surgeon, Dr. Noce. Dr. Noce testified today that he was familiar with the claimant. He said he first saw the claimant at St. Peter’s emergency room just prior
The 2011 federal district court opinion from the Middle District of Pennsylvania addressed a general public misconception regarding the Rule of Evidence 701. Indeed, Eric Lyons attempted to use his x-ray results and his physical symptoms against the defendants even though he lacked the expertise to prove that his broken rib injury resulted from his fight against Anthony Boyking. Furthermore, Lyons also believed that his contender benefited of the defendants’ involvement to defeat him. Certainly, Eric Lyons may have been accurate about his rights under the Eight Amendment, however, the law could not take into consideration his testimony due to the fact that his deposition would not qualify as a subject matter expert in the medical field. Thus, the pretrial order the defendants pursued to prevent the plaintiff 's personal contribution regarding his physical symptoms is legit regardless the truthfulness of Eric Lyons’s statement.
Advocate began to investigate on the 20th of August and called a list of people Mr. Thomas told her to call because they may be able to help. Unfortunately, none of his family answered, and two of the numbers were no longer in service. Ms. Advocate was able to reach his doctor. Mr. Thomas’ doctor told Ms. Advocate that Mr. Thomas had not renewed his prescription and his doctor offered to pay for his medication. After her conversation with the doctor, Ms. Advocate did not spend more time on the case and worked on different projects for the rest of the week.
Health Care Law: Tort Case Study Carolann Stanek University of Mary Health Care Law: Tort Case Study A sample case study reviewed substandard care that was delivered to Ms. Gardner after having sustained an accident and brought to Bay Hospital for treatment. Dr. Dick, a second-year pediatric resident, was on that day in the ED and provided care for Ms. Gadner. Dr. Moon, is the chief of staff and oversees the credentialing of all physicians at Bay Hospital.
He says “the state has not produced one iota of medical evidence.” This makes the jury think about how valid
The case of Riser v. American Medical Int’l, Inc. is about a malpractice action brought on by the children of patient Mrs. Riser claiming that their mothers death was a result of a medical error in which death occurred in performing a procedure on the wrong location. The procedure that should have been performed was a bilateral brachial arteriogram and what was alternately performed was a femoral arteriogram. The patient, Mrs. Riser had many previous health issues which included diabetes, end stage renal failure, and arteriosclerosis. She was experiencing decreased circulation in her lower arms and legs therefore she was admitted to the hospital. Her doctor, Dr. Sottiurai had ordered her to have bilateral arteriograms to see what could be the cause of the poor circulation.
The scientific study that it presented was over 10 years old, held in low regard by prior courts, and had a weakness observed by its own medical witness Given the absence of a control group, a very small sample size, and its datedness, the study would have not have stood up at a high school science fair, and should not have stood up in court. Furthermore, the government’s witness could not use his medical experience to support the government’s venture, because his patients were not proven to be similar enough to Mr. Whitman. Finally, the government tried to use an incomplete medical record to justify the forced medication of Mr. Whitman. The record showed that he had been handed the drugs the government wanted to use on him but did little to show evidence that they had actually been
It It f 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.