Laurel Creek Health Care Center V. Bishop Essay

When it comes to your conclusions and suggestions for improvements, I agree with the recommendation of having a third-party sign as a witness for any written consent. On the other hand, I am confused about your statement: “accepting the liability by Dr. Fredericks,” because if Bright Road is going to settle this case, the institution has to accept responsibility themselves, Bright Road has to agree that they are liable for what had occurred. Maybe the statement was not worded clearly, but that is where my confusion comes

Hello all, my name is David Jamison, MHA. I am representing Marion General Hospital as the committee chairman of the ethics committee. I am currently reviewing the case involving female patient Margie Whitson. The patient is a 95 year old patient whom wishes to have her pace maker “turned off”, due to her unwillingness to live. The death of her only remaining son was the last event that, that had forced her to contemplate the reason why she still lives. Mrs. Margie Whitson is no stranger to loss. When she was younger, she lost her youngest son to a severe motor vehicle accident that took his life at the early age of 30. She injured herself over 10 years ago, and received a hip fracture. Her most recently bout was

　　　　Slavery was at the root of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott sued his master to obtain freedom for himself and his family. His argument was that he had lived in a territory where slavery was illegal; therefore he should be considered a free man. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1800. Scott and his family were slaves owned by Peter Blow and his family. He moved to St. Louis with them in 1830 and was sold to John Emerson, a military doctor. They went to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Dred Scott married and had two

Ensuring the members of the board of directors are indigenes of the county and patients of the community health center.1

In many ways, the hospital system in America is set up mirroring our government. They are similar in the way that checks and balances have been set in place to ensure the best possible care is delivered to patients. With these checks and balances there are three main bodies; the governing board, medical staff, and executive management (Showalter, 2017). The duties and responsibilities of each body many times is to oversee and continually check the others. A prime example of this system can be seen through the case of Moore v. The Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, which took place in Nevada and was heard before the Supreme Court of the state in 1972 (Moore v. Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, 1972). Specifically, in this case, the duty of the governing board to “exercise reasonable care in selecting and retaining medical staff” is questioned in contrast with the right of the physician to have “due process… when disciplinary action is taken” (Showalter, 2017). In hopes of changing a decision by the governing board, and attempting to reverse the decision of a lower court, the appellant, Dr. Moore, brought the case against Carson-Tahoe Hospital (Moore v. Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, 1972).

Board of County Commissioners of Brevard V. Snyder set a precedent since the Court concluded the comprehensive plan, provides for future land use through gradual and ordered growth, and it is not a literal guide. Thus, Local governments have the discretion to decide that certain land uses should be denied, even if they comply with comprehensive plan guidelines.

1. Their uses of cash were primarily used for paying off debt and investing it in marketable securities. Also they spent some of their cash on fixed assets. Even though their ending cash was lower than the previous year, they were using their cash effectively.

Facts: Plaintiffs Carl and Elaine Miles, owners and impresarios of “Blackie, The Talking Cat” brought a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the S.D. Georgia, challenging the constitutionality of the Augusta, GA, Business License Ordinance. They complained that the ordinance was inapplicable in their case “accepting contributions from pedestrian in the downtown Augusta area, who wanted to hear the cat speak “and that the ordinance violates the rights of speech. The Plaintiffs attacked the ordinance as being unconstitutional and overbroad in contravention of the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This case, Bowers v. Hardwick, originated when Michael Hardwick was targeted by a policer officer for harassment in Georgia. A houseguest of Hardwick's let the officer into his home, where Hardwick was found engaging in oral sex with his partner, who was another male. Michael Hardwick was arrested and charged of sodomy. After charges were later dropped, Hardwick brought his case to the Supreme Court to have the sodomy law declared unconstitutional.

We were able to locate and review the lawsuit Robert Coleman v CDCR, et al. In the complaint the plaintiff alleges that he was moved from a bunk bed cell to a side by side cell, which he claims seriously affected his mental health disorder (schizophrenia). The inmate states that when he informed the C/O that he could not stay in the side by side cell the C/O retaliated against him by placing the inmate in a small cage that he had to stand in for approximately seven hours. According to the inmate, his medical disability prohibits him from standing for long periods of time and subsequently experienced right knee pain and swelling. The inmate also indicates that his placement in a modified program violated his rights against lack of yard time

Duane Buck, a death row inmate, has served more than twenty one years for murdering his ex-girlfriend Debra Gardner and Kenneth Butler. He accused Kenneth for sleeping with Debra and also shot his stepsister in the chest, who survived. After shooting Kenneth, Gardner ran to the street and was chased until she was gunned down while her children watched. Even though the crime should be punished, bucks attorneys argue Mr. Buck was denied a fair trial. Walter Quijano, a psychologist, gave his testimony during the trial stating that Buck was more likely to be a future danger because of his racial color. What surprises everyone is that Buck’s defense lawyer was the one who called Quijano and evoke the testimony. Even though the racial testimony had no place in the trial it still didn’t justify whether they should throw out the death sentence. No racial testimony appeared to be in his early appeals due to his counsel’s impotence for introducing it. Still it was very believable because this was not the first case Quijano made a similar testimony that had violated an inmate’s constitutional rights. Bucks lawyers tried to use this information to fight for Buck but they were not successful because the courts ruled Buck had waited too long to raise the issue. The argument here is if Buck is

. The husband of the plaintiff file a petition to the court that his wife[plaintiff] is mentally ill and needs to have a court order directing the admission of her to the mental health hospital. The petition initiated by plaintiff’s husband is the order of the Wayne County probate court, and it is also appropriately certified by Doctors Wolodzko, who after appearing in her house and introducing himself as a doctor , and have a conversation with her in person that day and another day in telephone, determine that she is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and Smyk. The court gave the order and the Plaintiff was taken by ambulance from her home to a private psychiatric

The case of Elizabeth Bouvia v. Superior Court is a well-known case in the patient’s right to refuse treatment. Elizabeth Bouvia was born with cerebral palsy, which worsened, as she grew older and subsequently caused her to become a quadriplegic. She additionally developed severe degenerative arthritis that caused her to be in continuous unbearable pain. At the age of twenty-eight her condition had worsened to the point that she was said to be bed ridden and completely dependent on others for her activities of daily living. Although she had many physical challenges she was a

It was clear negligence when it was so obvious that the toes did not have proper circulation. If the nurses were doing their job by checking on the extremities should have quickly noticed that there were circulation issues. By not reporting this was pure negligence.

The consent form will not protect DeLong and the hospital for several reasons. The first is that the signing of this document was not witnessed by a third party. The other reason is that Passarelli could prove that DeLong misrepresented the content of the consent form as an insurance form giving him a lack of understanding to the