1. What is the difference between a right and entitlement?
2. What is a tort?
3. What are the elements of negligence?
4. What is fraud and how might fraud impact our health care system, especially any given hospital administration engaging in fraudulent practices?
5. What is strict products liability?
Current Event Commentary (< 300 Words): Please take read the following posting by Jeff Segal, Blood Pressure Gone Wild. Doctor Sued for Battery, at https://medicaljustice.com/blood-pressure-cuff-gone-wild-doctor-sued-for-battery/ and you may wish to read Ann Latner’s posting at Renal & Urology News at http://www.renalandurologynews.com/legal-issues-in-medicine/patient-sues-physician-for-not-removing-blood-pressure-cuff/article/214082/. Both pieces discuss a 1992 KE personal injury case arising from a medical procedure performed on Ms. S. Coulter who sued for failed informed consent and battery resulting from the defendant’s failure to honor her request to remove the cuff of a ABPC device.
The plaintiff appealed a verdict in favor of the defendant based on procedural errors at trial, which included the judge’s refusal to instruct the jury on plaintiff’s motion on the elements of battery. In 2000, the KE SCT ruled the plaintiff should receive a new trial based on her claim may be broader than an informed consent and failure to warn claim, because it was about revocation of consent, informed or not. Because the plaintiff claim consent was revoked, there was a tort—Battery. The jury should receive an instruction (noting in some circumstances an instruction may be procedurally required and proper. Here, it may also be a tactic to influence the jury and potential reason the judge refused). Here is a link to the 2000 decision https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3575440291496650285&q=Coulter+v.+Thomas,+33+S.W.3d+522+(2000))&hl=en&as_sdt=8000006.
Based on these presentations, what are the elements of common law battery arising from revocation of or failure to obtain informed consent?
Why might the defendants feel that they were damned if they did or didn't by their actions? For example, what happens if they removed the cuff, and then she suffered undetected changes in BP causing injury (e.g. stroke) or death (e.g. cardiac arrest)? Were there actions the physicians take to avoid the alleged injury?
Note eight years elapsed from the time of filing to its potential finality, and it is unclear whether there was a new trial or not. While some reading this might see a US tort-system gone wild. I do not. What I see is a tort system in place to protect people by imposing on participants about the need for care and due diligence. Yes, the US tort system is an imperfect system. People are complex, and because they are, dealing with people, personalities and illness and the courts can lead to unpredictable results. Believe or not, the plaintiff was within her rights to file this case, which was not frivolous. It is not a frivolous case, because there are genuine issues of material fact that a reasonable jury could decide. Consider this, must a person be reasonable or strong claim or winnable claim to justifiably file a medical negligence claim in a court of law?