The Case Of Tomcik Vs. Ohio Department Of Rehabilitation And Corrections

In the case of Tomcik vs. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, Janet Tomcik, the plaintiff, blamed the loss of her right breast on the fact that there was a major delay in her examination and treatment of her tumor. This could be known as nonfeasance negligence, which is the “failure to act when there is a duty to act,” (Pozgar, 2016). The corrections department, or in this case, the defendant, claimed that Tomcik`s cancer was already so developed, that her breast would have been removed regardless of when her official checkup and treatment took place.

One stakeholder in this case is Janet Tomcik. She is the patient who not only lost her breast, but endured “physical pain, [and] emotional suffering,” (Tomcik, 1991). The other

The next step one should take is to get the lump examined by a medical professional. She did and even constantly signed the form to see a nurse/doctor. When she was got an appointment, Tomcik knew she was not properly examined. This leads to another morally relevant fact. The plaintiff knew her lump could possibly be breast cancer. Therefore, she persistently tried to meet with a medical professional. However, even when she met with one, her actual mass was never truly investigated. Finally, another fact is the medical professionals had a duty to Tomcik and were supposed to fully listen to her concerns and examine her. However, they did not perform their job to the fullest capability. Tomcik was only truly examined and diagnosed about 6 months after discovering her

One plan of action is they could try and prove in court that they were not at fault. This would be extremely difficult since there is no true way to prove that Tomcik lost her breast because of the delay of treatment. Also, since she didn`t get an accurate exam the very first time, there are no records to prove how advanced her tumor was. Overall, this plan would be risky, because the defendant could lose and be found guilty of negligence. Another course of action could be the corrections department could settle in court. This way, they are not admitting to being guilty or innocent. In this plan, they would probably have to pay the plaintiff money, and maybe have to reevaluate their health care procedures for their inmates, including the professionals who work there. I believe this plan would be the best for the Corrections Department. They would not be found guilty and might not have to deal with as many consequences, compared to if they were found guilty. A final possible plan of action could be for the Department to plead guilty for negligence. This way, the lawsuit would end, Tomcik would be compensated, and the corrections department would face harsher consequences. Personally, I think this route of action would be the best for Tomcik. This way, she would get reimbursed, and the penalties the corrections facility would face, could serve as some justice for what happened to