Mary Smith vs. Nurse Polly: Nurse Polly is negligent in this scenario for several reasons. The first negligent act she committed was not attending to the nurse bell right away. It took her 40 minutes to finally attend to Mary. Nurse Polly did not know the severity of this patient’s problem for her to take that long. The next mistake she committed was seeing that Mary’s vital signs were dangerous and totally bypassing it, she instead gave her pain medications instead of tending to her vitals. The next mistake she made was not asking for expert advice on the fetal heart monitor. She clearly knew she was not aware of how to use it and also bypassed that, putting the child at risk. Another mistake she made was not calling the residents. She put the mother and child at risk with her carelessness.
Causes of action: Negligence
Duty: Attend to nurse bell- Came 40 minutes late
Duty: Monitor vitals- Checked them but did nothing about it after noticing they were dangerous.
Duty: Call for a doctor- Forgot to do so.
Liability:
Failure to use patient data gathered: Nurse Polly assumed Mary was just progressing in her labor. (Assume Nothing)
Failure to monitor vital signs: Although she did check Mary’s vitals she did not nothing to bring them back to normal.
Mary Smith vs. Dr. Marty: Dr. Marty is negligent in this case for a few reasons. The first negligent act committed was not properly reading the chart. If he would have properly read the chart he would have noticed that there were two other doctors on call, Dr. Peabody and Dr. Monroe. The next negligent act on this doctor’s behalf was not receiving a consent form for the Cesarean.
Causes of action: Negligence
Duty: Read patients chart carefully- Skimmed through chart, missing vital information.
Duty: Receive consent- Did not receive signed consent.
Liability:
Failure to read patient chart.
Failure to receive informed consent.
Mary Smith vs Dr. Gil: Doctor Gil is negligent in this case for not reading the patients chart after being called in by Dr. Marty. If he would have read the chart he would have seen that there were two doctors on call. He is also negligent for not receiving consent from the patient for the C-section.
Causes of action: Negligence
Duty: Read patients chart: Did not read patient chart.
Duty: Receive a form of consent: Did not receive consent for C-section.
Liability:
Failure to read patients chart.
Failure to receive informed consent.
Mary Smith vs Pediatric Residents: The residents declared the baby dead without re-trying CPR and doing all they could to resuscitate baby.
Causes of action: Negligence:
Duty: Preserve the baby’s life: Declared dead without trying enough.
Loss of love/affection: Even though baby did not die, for the short amount of time that the parents thought they lost their child thy also believed they potentially lost the love and affection of the child.
Liability:
Loss of chance to survive.
Mary Smith vs. Long Island University Hospital: The hospital was negligent for not having enough staff. Which led to an over worked nurse that was too busy and forgetful to attend to patients properly.
Causes of action: Negligence
Duty: Have available staff: Hospital was understaffed, which led to overworked nurses that couldn’t perform jobs properly.
Liability:
Failure to have adequate staff.
Potential progression of the case to its outcome:
This scenario illustrates several negligent acts committed by the staff of Long Island University Hospital. While some parts of this case might be arguable the vast majority is not. The doctors that did not receive the consent from the patient can argue that infant’s life was at risk and that it was an emergency. I believe this case is better off as a settlement because it will cost a lot more to bring it to trial. The staff did not properly look through the patient’s chart which would have caused fewer problems if
