Law Essay for Free: Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Association

The healthcare sector has also experienced a good share of law offenders. Different cases have been presented before in courts where the health sector has been involved. For instance, the Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Association took place in the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Medical malpractice is a conventional offense that is evident in the health sector. In this appeal, the issue at hand was negligence action that was brought against several physicians and the hospital regarding service delivery. It is important to note that the Annapolis Emergency Association enacted poor standards of care to patients, an aspect that had led to malpractice. The court ruled against the hospital on neglecting the requirements of patients, an act that is against the mandate of the healthcare guidelines. The court also ruled that the standards to be applied were the "strict locality" rule and the appellants had failed to meet these requirements that formed the verdict for appellees.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The Shilkret v. Annapolis, Emergency Hospital Association case, provides a critical approach in contract law. First, it is significant to focus on the evidence supplied that prepared ground for trial. It is clear that the obstetrician-gynecologist denoted that Anne Arundel was a member of the American Hospital Association. According to the obstetrician-gynecologists sentiments, all hospitals that belonged to this group had to meet a given standard of operation. In conclusion, the Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Association passed to trial and was ruled because of adequate evidence. One of the significant evidence was that there were set standards for the medical facility that were not adhered to by the physicians in the hospital.

Cooper v. Sisters of Charity

In another case Cooper v. Sisters of Charity, the hospital was accused of malpractice where a patient lost the life. The plaintiff`s evidence depicted that the hospital did not conduct a diagnosis to the injured patient, and this led to his death. Failure by the medical facility to perform a diagnosis on the patient means that it eliminated the chances of survival. This case proceeded to trial after adequate evidence was provided against Sisters of Charity. Some of the evidence that was evident in this case include the death of a patient due to the physicians not conducting a diagnosis. In addition, the government provides that "Even if negligence is established, there was no proof that the erroneous diagnosis and treatment was the proximate cause of the death, asserting that even if surgery had been performed immediately, it is mere speculation to say that it would have been successful" (Court Listener, 2009, p. 2).

When we critically study the Cooper v. Sisters of Charity, different aspects are portrayed. It is clear that the death of Mrs. Greitens could have been stopped if proper medical attention was provided. For instance, the patient was not offered with diagnosis at the beginning, and as a result, it was impossible to detect the extent to which the injury had occurred. Malpractice is evident in the medical facility, and the physical well being and life itself are threatened by the healthcare practitioners. In conclusion, strong intuitive sense of humanity was undermined by the hospital and was a threat to the patients who did seek medical service.

Roberts v. Ohio Permanente

This case involved a applicant`s decedent was struck by a truck while cycling. The events of the incident followed when he was taken to Ohio Permanente's emergency room. The physician on duty did not attend to him even after complaining of a headache and vomiting. The patient later died from a fractured skull after being released from the medical facility. The ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court was against the health facility and denoted that there were chances of survival if the patient would have been dragonized. Therefore, the court provided that "In order to maintain an action for the loss of a less-than-even chance of recovery or survival, the plaintiff must present expert medical testimony showing that the health care provider's negligent act or omission increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff" (Leagle, 2010, p. 9). Equally, there was substantial evidence that was provided and indicated negligence as a significant cause of the plaintiff`s death. In conclusion, this case was well presented and ruled by the court. It was the role of the medical facility to conduct a diagnosis to the young boy to ensure that he did not fracture his any of his bones including internal bleedings when he was hit.

Downer v. Veilleux

In this case, medical malpractice is evident. The case involves the plaintiff who was involved in a car accident on October 24, 1963. She had a fracture in the left knee and another one on his right femur. Fractures of the skull and kneecap were evident. Some critical aspects that emerge from the case include her being confined to the split of the right femoral neck that failed to heal suitably that led to permanent partial disability. The defendant provided that he first treated the patient for shock before administering other medical procedures. The court ruled that the defendant was of direct medical malpractice. Different issues are presented in this case. For instance, the plaintiff should have been diagnosed with the fractures before administering other health conditions such as shock. Besides, the period that the physician took was one day to attend to the neck, and this resulted to the permanent partial disability. In conclusion, the court was right to rule this case in favor of the plaintiff considering the evidence that was provided.

References

Cohen, J. J., Gabriel, B. A., & Terrell, C. (2002). The case for diversity in the health care workforce. Health Affairs, 21(5), 90-102.

Court Listener (2009). Cooper v. Sisters of Charity. Retrieved on February 21, 2018, from, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/883293/cooper-v-sisters-of-charity/

Court Listener (2009). Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Association. Retrieved on February 21, 2018, from, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1962544/shilkret-v-annapolis-emergency-hosp/

Downer v. Veilleux. Retrieved on February 21, 2018, from, https://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1974/322-a-2d-82-0.html

Jamieson, K. H., & Hennessy, M. (2006). Public understanding of and support for the courts: Survey results. Geo. LJ, 95, 899.

Leagle, (2010). Roberts v. Ohio Permanente. Retrieved on February 21, 2018, from, https://www.leagle.com/decision/199655976ohiost3d4831450

Lewis, M. H., Gohagan, J. K., & Merenstein, D. J. (2007). The locality rule and the physician's dilemma: local medical practices vs the national standard of care. JAMA, 297(23), 2633-2637.