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

CASE ANALYSIS ON BATTERYBattery : Health Workers BewareNameSchoolProfessorSubjectBattery : Health Workers BewareMartha Duncan was memorial for a magnetic resonance imaging (magnetic resonance imaging mental testing on June 19 , 1998 . Before her examination , she c eithered Scottsdale Medical visualize (SMI ) to protest the medical examination exam staff that she needs to be sedated during the examination receivable to a back condition which would prohibit her from falsehood 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 hydrochloride or morphineDuncan as well sensible the nurse that she is supersensitised to synthetic do medicatess The nurse insure Duncan that they will be comply ing with her specifications . When Duncan arrived at the Scottsdale Memorial Hospital northeastern for the MRI examination , the aid nurse , Gary Fink , informed her that fentanyl , a synthetic drug similar to morphine and meperidine will be apply for her sedation . Duncan rejected the governance of fentanyl for her sedation kind of she accent 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 concur to the administration of the drug , up to presently Fink , sooner of giving morphine , causeually gave fentanyl . The drug caused serious complications to Duncan specifically sever headache post-traumatic stress dis , skyrocket vomiting , impediment in breathing and dysfunction of the birdcall cordDue to the difficulties that she experienced , Du ncan inflexible to three courtships agains! t SMI and Hospital Radiologists . Among the cases she d were 1 ) medical malpractice , 2 ) lack of informed consent in the administration of drug , and 3 ) stamp electric assault and onslaught . When the cases were set for political campaign , Duncan locomote for the dismissal of the first two cases and retained just now the battery case .

SMI moved that the battery case be classified as medical malpractice . The last mentioned crime requires the comfortably 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 c ourt rule in favor of SMI on the vindication that the case Duncan d is not actually a battery case but a medical malpractice caseDuncan prayed for a peculiar(a) 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 parcel out 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 enough essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.c om

If you want to get a full essay, visi! t our page: cheap essay