Negligence Case of Perin v. Hayne - Assignment Example

The plaintiff argued that the defendant negligently injured the recurrent laryngeal nerve. However, the defendant claimed that the laryngeal was not severed. The rule of identifying negligence, in this case, is through expert opinion. The doctors argued that the method used by the plaintiff was appropriate. The trial court directed a verdict on the defendant on a specific negligence issue.

The plaintiff illustrated the applicability of the res ipsa sequitur doctrine. The defendant claimed that the second foundation fact involving res ipsa sequitur is absent because it doesn’t lie in laymen’s common knowledge. This is about an injury occurring during cervical fusion surgery, because of inadequate care. The trial court refused to submit it; there wasn’t a basis for the application of res ipsa sequitur.

The defendant claimed that there was adequate evidence on the issue of trespass or battery. She alleges that four vertebrae were fused, together with the defendant’s assurances and inability to warn her of related hazards. However, the defendant claimed that the defendant was given adequate advice on her health problem and the scope of the corrective surgery. The trial court found out that the trespass theory, in this case, is inadequate to the applicability to the surgery to which the patient did not consent.

The trial court maintained the motion of the defendant for a directed verdict. The trial court held that there was insufficient evidence to defend jury consideration of the case based on the four pleaded theories.

Will the defendant continue the treatment of the patient, given that other medical services providers have refused to accept the plaintiff as their patient? Is the refusal by hospitals like Herrick and Alta Bates to offer medical services to the patient amount to a refusal to offer emergency medical services?

A medical practitioner, who has provided the patient with adequate notice of termination, is not obliged to proceed with the medical care; even if the other medical services providers are unwilling to give the patient care. The obligation of the doctor to give emergency treatment does not take into consideration the treatment of patients with chronic sickness that needs continuous medical care.

The court illustrated that the defendant had provided the plaintiff with adequate notice. The doctor also, in good faith, by giving her names of alternative service providers, and also continued to provide medical services to the plaintiff during her lengthy duration of seeking alternative care. The trial court illustrated that the patient was not undergoing emergency treatment when she sought admission to the dialysis program. The illness of the patient cannot be an emergency if the patient obeys all the medical instructions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the trial court. Also, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the order of the trial court requiring the defendant to give dialysis treatment to the plaintiff was to stay in effect until the decision of the trial court becomes final.