question archive What are the possible theories of recovery? What are the possible claims, defenses, tortfeasor(s) and plaintiffs? Manuel and Maria Hernandez are migrant farm workers who make their home in Anytown, U
What are the possible theories of recovery? What are the possible claims, defenses, tortfeasor(s) and plaintiffs? Manuel and Maria Hernandez are migrant farm workers who make their home in Anytown, U
Subject:LawPrice:4.89 Bought3
What are the possible theories of recovery? What are the possible claims, defenses, tortfeasor(s) and plaintiffs? Manuel and Maria Hernandez are migrant farm workers who make their home in Anytown, U.S.A. Recently, Anytown has experienced a significant increase in the number of its Spanish-speaking residents. English is a second language for the elder Hernandezes, but their children, Alicia and Michael, who are 10 and 13 respectively, are fluent in both English and Spanish. Manuel was injured at work and rushed to the Emergency Room at Complete Health Care Clinic and Hospital. Upon arrival, Maria was given a Notice of Privacy Practices and asked to sign a Consent to Treatment Form. Both of the forms were in English.
Dr. Belk, a local physician, treated Manuel for his injuries, which included significant internal injuries. Manuel suffered contusions to the upper body and multiple fractures, including fractures of the ribs and hips. He was admitted to the hospital surgically treated for the injuries, including the removal of Manuel's spleen, and placed him in ICU. He was experiencing difficulty breathing and received supplemental oxygen via oxygen mask at a volume of 30%.
Over the next two days, however, his breathing continued to be labored. Pulmonologists were called in to consult and provide treatment. After his condition did not improve with 100% oxygen via face mask, he was diagnosed with Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome or ARDS. Rather than continue the supplemental oxygen via face mask, the consulting pulmonologist, Dr. Breathwaite, ordered the insertion of an endotracheal tube connected to a mechanical ventilator. While the tube was being inserted, Manuel became very agitated. Breathwaite then ordered the administration of Paralysor, a drug that, within 30 seconds of administration, paralyzes the striated muscles and renders all muscular activity - including breathing and speech - impossible.
When the drug began to take effect, Manuel's blood pressure immediately began to fall. It continued to fall until he lost all blood pressure and experienced a "cardiac arrest." Dr. Breathwaite and the Code Blue staff initiated CPR and other measures to revive him. Maria and her children witnessed the entire episode.
Breathwaite then noticed "gastric contents in the breathing tube, revealing that the endotracheal tube had, in fact, passed through Manuel's esophagus into his stomach instead of his lungs. The tube was relocated and properly inserted; however, by that time, Manuel had lost consciousness. He died four days later. The autopsy revealed that he suffered a period of "oxygen deprivation that caused his brain to swell out of its cavity and force its way down into the spinal canal."
Breathwaite apologized profusely to Maria, who was having difficulty understanding the medical terminology. Through an interpreter hired by her legal counsel, Maria learned that the medication used by Breathwaite would have rendered Manuel incapable of breathing and speaking, but he would not have been rendered unconscious. Manuel would have been fully aware of his surroundings, but had to depend entirely - and silently- upon his attendants for his oxygen supply. Consequently, Manuel was conscious of his surroundings and knew that he was dying of suffocation, but, because of the paralyzing drug, was unable to communicate his distress.
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
Health care providers have a duty to their clients. They are expected to use the latest knowledge and practices in treating their clients. After establishing there existed a duty, we must test whether there was negligence on the part of the medic (Golpayegani et al., 2019). The neighbor principle as outlined in Donoghue's Case (1932) dictates that every individual should ensure they do not cause harm if it is foreseeable. In this case, the plaintiff's case would be that he suffered damages due to the defendant's and the tortfeasor's.
Nonetheless, the defense for this claim would be that the wrong medication was administered after an assessment, and that was the practice. As such, there was a significant contribution from the tortfeasor. The tortfeasor would raise the issue that he is a specialist, and his actions were aimed at ensuring the patient's condition improved.
