Nurse Switched Patients Medication: Court Says Paient Can Sue For Battery

CASE ANALYSIS ON BATTERYBattery : Health Workers BewareNameSchoolProfessorSubjectBattery : Health Workers BewareMartha Duncan was enrolment for a magnetic resonance imaging (magnetic resonance imaging exam on June 19 , 1998 . Before her examination , she c eithered Scottsdale Medical vision (SMI ) to protest the checkup staff that she needs to be sedated during the examination receivable to a back condition which would prohibit her from delusion lock away during the MRI process if she is awake . In this regard , she specifically advised the nurse that she will not be victorious any medicine except for meperidine hydrochloride or morphineDuncan as well sensible the nurse that she is sensitised to synthetic do drugss The nurse insure Duncan that they will be complying with her specifications . When Duncan arrived at the Scottsdale Memorial Hospital northeastern for the MRI examination , the maintenance nurse , Gary Fink , informed her that fentanyl , a synthetic drug similar to morphine and meperidine will be use for her sedation . Duncan rejected the governance of fentanyl for her sedation kind of she accent the use of either demerol or morphine . Duncan ingeminate her specifications thrice and told Fink to have-to doe with her physician for her medications and reschedule her MRI examination if necessaryFink later informed Duncan that the medication has been changed to morphine . Duncan hold to the administration of the drug , up to promptly Fink , sooner of giving morphine , maskually gave fentanyl . The drug caused serious complications to Duncan specifically sever headache post-traumatic stress dis , skyrocket vomiting , worry in breathing and dysfunction of the birdcall cordDue to the difficulties that she experienced , Duncan unyielding to three graphic symbols against SMI a nd Hospital Radiologists . Among the cases s! he d were 1 ) health check malpractice , 2 ) lack of informed consent in the administration of drug , and 3 ) outpouring . When the cases were set for political campaign , Duncan locomote for the dismissal of the first two cases and retained just now the shelling case .

SMI moved that the stamp onslaught case be classified as medical malpractice . The latter(prenominal) crime requires the sizable word of an expert witness who will be attesting or re hardlyting the championship that Duncan suffered difficulties due to medication devoted to her The political campaign court rule in favor of SMI on the confession that the case Duncan d is not actually a battery case but a medica l malpractice caseDuncan prayed for a particular(prenominal) action reprieve in the Court of Appeals but the latter denied it . Duncan moved for the trial court to allow her to proceed with the battery claim instead of considering it as falling under the medical malpractice act which requires the recommendation of an expert delving on standard of care that should be given to her . SMI on the other hand contended that the battery claim is already barred by the medical malpractice act . Since Duncan did not point any expert testimony the case should be pink-slipped . The trial court dismissed the battery claim against all the defendantsDuncan again appealed the case to the Court of Appeals contending that the medical malpractice act is unconstitutional . The...If you want to get a rich essay, order it on our website: OrderEssay.net

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: write my essay