Reference no: EM133809436
THE COURT WAS APPALLED
The plaintiff, while in the custody of the defendant penal institution, alleged that because the defendant's employees failed to timely diagnose her breast cancer, her right breast had to be removed. The defendant contended that even if its employees were negligent, the plaintiff's cancer was so far developed when discovered that it would nevertheless have required removal of her breast.
Pursuant to the defendant's policy of medically evaluating all new inmates, on May 26, Dr. Evans gave the plaintiff a medical examination.He testified that his physical evaluation included an examination of the plaintiff's breasts. However, he stated that his examination was very cursory.
The day following her examination, the plaintiff examined her own breasts. At that time, she discovered a lump in her right breast, which she characterized as being about the size of a pea. The plaintiff then sought an additional medical evaluation at the defendant's medical clinic. Testimony indicated that fewer than half of the inmates who sign the clinic list are actually seen by medical per-sonnel the next day. Also,those not examined on the day for which the list is signed are given no preference in being examined on the following day. Their names are simply deleted from the daily list, and their only recourse is to continually sign the list until they are examined.The evidence indicated that after May 27,the plaintiff constantly signed the clinic list and provided the reason she was requesting medical care.
A nurse finally examined the plaintiff on June 21. The nurse noted in her nursing notes that the plain-tiff had a "moderate large mass in right breast."The nurse recognized that the proper procedure was to measure such a mass, but she testified that this was impossible because no measuring device was available. The missing measuring device to which she alluded was a simple ruler. The nurse concluded that Evans should again examine the plaintiff.
On June 28, Evans again examined the plaintiff. He recorded in the progress notes that the plaintiff had "a mass on her right wrist. Will send her to hospital and give her Benadryl for allergy she has." Evans meant to write "breast" not "wrist."
He again failed to measure the size of the mass on the plaintiff's breast.
The plaintiff was transferred to the Franklin Pre-Release Center (FPRC) on September 28.On Sep-tember 30, a nurse at FPRC examined the plain-tiff;the nurse recorded that the plaintiff had a "golf ball"-sized lump in her right breast.The plaintiff was transported to the hospital on October 27,where Dr.Walker treated her.The plaintiff received a mam-mogram examination,which indicated that the tu-mor was probably malignant. This diagnosis was confirmed by a biopsy performed on November 9.
The plaintiff was released from confinement on November 13.
On November 16, Dr. Lidsky, a surgeon, examined the plaintiff. Lidsky noted the existence of the lump in the plaintiff's breast and determined that the size of the mass was approximately 4 to 5 centimeters and somewhat fixed. He performed a modified radical mastectomy upon the plaintiff's right breast, by which nearly the plaintiff's entire right breast was removed.
WHAT IS YOUR VERDICT?
Negligence of a professional person is referred to as malpractice. Ordinary negligence is defined as the failure to do, under the circumstances, what a reasonably prudent person would or would not do. Gross negligence is intention or wanton omission of care that would be proper to provide, or the doing of that which would be improper to do. Therefore, negligence can occur through acts of commission or omission such as administering the wrong medication or failing to administer a prescribed medication.
1. What are the four elements of negligence and the definitions? Which elements of negligence were met in this case? Explain.
2. What ethical principles were violated in this case? Answer the question.