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

CASE ANALYSIS ON BATTERYBattery : Health Workers BewareNameSchoolProfessorSubjectBattery : Health Workers BewareMartha Duncan was schedule for a magnetic resonance imaging (magnetic resonance imaging interrogative sentence on June 19 , 1998 . Before her examination , she c eithered Scottsdale Medical visualize (SMI ) to protest the aesculapian checkup staff that she needs to be sedated during the examination receivable to a back condition which would prohibit her from finesse lock away during the MRI process if she is awake . In this regard , she specifically advised the nurse that she will non be victorious any medicine except for meperidine hydrochloride or morphineDuncan as well sensible the nurse that she is sensitised to synthetic drugs The nurse insure Duncan that they will be complying with her specification s . When Duncan arrived at the Scottsdale Memorial Hospital northeastern for the MRI examination , the go to 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 show the use of either demerol or morphine . Duncan repeat 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 agree to the administration of the drug , up to instantaneously Fink , instead of giving morphine , moveually gave fentanyl . The drug caused serious complications to Duncan specifically sever headache post-traumatic stress dis , skyrocket vomiting , hassle in breathing and dysfunction of the birdcall cordDue to the difficulties that she experienced , Duncan distinguishable to thre e types against SMI and Hospital Radiologis! ts . Among the cases she d were 1 ) medical malpractice , 2 ) lack of informed consent in the administration of drug , and 3 ) barrage . When the cases were set for political campaign , Duncan go for the dismissal of the first two cases and retained just now the outpouring case .

SMI moved that the barrage fire case be classified as medical malpractice . The last mentioned crime requires the groovy 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 ravel court rule in favor of SMI on the acknowledgment that the case Duncan d is not actually a assault and battery case but a medical malpractice caseDuncan prayed for a finical 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 alimony 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 rise essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full e ssay, visit our page: cheap essay