Healthcare Law-Case Number One.
Facts.
I would advise Fly to sue the hospital for professional malpractice. Bake failed to follow protocol during surgery. He did not confirmif any part of the bone broken off was left in place before inserting the new device in Fry’s leg.His ignorance led to nerve piercing in the leg.The two doctors Brown and Bake, dismissed the patient twice even after a patient came complaining of pain. The two doctors dismissed it as a scar tissue without conducting any test to confirm the matter.
On the other hand, Cook’s company us responsible for manufacturing the ball socket used in the surgery. However, the company failed to warnon the possibleeffects of not removingall the original bone. He was also present during the procedure and did not ensureall safety protocols before lodging in the new ball socket.
Legal Issue
Fry can provenegligence against the hospital, Bake, and Brown for several reasons. For one, the said doctor’s owed a duty to care for Fry and failed to do so.During the two times, Fry went back to the hospital in pain, and the doctors dismissed him, claiming it was nothing. Nos tests were carried out to confirm the cause of pain in the patient’s leg.On the other hand, the hospitallacks proper protocol to be followed during surgery and even the follow-up procedures.I believe the patient’s suffering would have been avoided if appropriate protocols would have been developed.Also, if the doctors, Brown and Bake would have acted on the patient’s complaint and done the tests sooner, the issue would have been resolved on time.Medical practice is not based onassumptions, but the proof and verification are required before any conclusion is made (Luntz et al., 2017).
Decision
The doctors owe Fry standard care during the procedure and follow up.Medically,Brown and Bake should investigate the cause of pain in the patient’s leg by carrying out the necessary tests instead of dismissing him based on an assumption (Gostin, Thompson, & Grad, 2007, p.41). The hospital should also follow up on the patient, have set up protocolson procedures carried out, and follow up procedures. Citing evidence from the case of Lacombe V. Dr. Walter Olin Moss Reg’l Hosp., 617 So. 2d 612(La. Ct App. 1993), the pain was not among the stated risks for this surgery and defendant caused the injury.Failure to do so is neglect to their client.Also, the lack of proper instructionsand precautions indicated on the insertion ofthemanufactured socket ball is partly to blame. Cook’s company should have more caution indicated such that the doctors would follow up the protocol without missing such essential details.
Cook was also present during surgery, and he would have instructed the doctors to ensure they removed all parts of the original bone, even the broken pieces. His failure to do so led to the stated issue. Referring tocase 19.3 STATE COURT CASE Failure to Warn Patch V. Hillerich&Bradsby Company 257 P.3d 383 (2011)Supreme Court of Montana, “The risk of harm accompanying the bat’s use extends beyond the player who holds the bat in his or herhands.”The issue goes further than the hospital. The company should have given clear guidelines and precautions to be taken before inserting the new device in Mr. Fry’s leg. Considering that his company products had undergone successful tests before, he should have noted the difference and was aware of the protocol to be followed. Cook should have instructed the doctors to take caution and ensure they obliterated the boneto ensure the new device fits perfectly.
Support
In the case of Bake and Brown, the plaintiff’s lawyers can argue using the “res ipsa” approach.From the case, it is clear that this incident is notamong the expected side effects of the procedure. If the doctors checked to ensure all the bone was extractedbefore lodging in the manufactured ball socket.Furthermore, the two doctors dismissedthe patient twice after he came complaining of severe pain months after the surgery.The painand suffering were avoidable if the two doctors followed were careful during the procedure and followed up.From the records and discovery of the cause of the patient’s pain, the patient (Plaintiff)had nothing to do with it.
References
Gostin, L. O., Thompson, F. E., & Grad, F. P. (2007). The law and the public’s health: the foundations. Law in public health practice, 2, 25-44.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zkQlFHCQCHIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA25&ots=q5UaKm6jkE&sig=XkrxPdGVx4S1DJT2ysVmAD86Ej0
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Harder, S., & Grant, G. (2017). Torts: cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.
https://research.bond.edu.au/en/publications/torts-cases-and-commentary-2