100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 5 pages.
Surname 1NameProfessorSubjectDateTort law Case briefCase: Dehn v. EdgecombeIssue: The primary issue presented before the court is whether the state of Maryland recognizes a separate or independent cause of action for the wife of a patient against a doctor who is guilty of negligence during the treatment of her husband but who did not have a direct interaction or relationship with the wife. Ruling: The court held that no independent cause of action exists against the respondent based on the alleged medical malpractice of the defendant. Analysis Facts of the case: In 1994, when Mrs. Dehn was carrying the couple’s second child, the Dehns made a decision not to have any more children. Consequently, they decided that Mr. Dehnshould have a vasectomy. Hence, he decided to discuss the issue with Dr. Edgecombe, their family doctor. Since Dr. Edgecombe was unqualified to perform the operation himself, he referred Mr. Dehn to Dr. Mazella, a surgeon. Dr. Mazella subsequently performed the operation on 24 October 1995, and no issues arise as to the referral or the vasectomy itself. No issues also exist as to the post-operative care, including advice that was rendered by Dr. Mazella, who expressly warned Mr. Dehn that the surgery might be ineffective and hence he
Surname 2might still father a child. Hence, to safeguard against pregnancy, Dr. Mazella told Mr. Dehn to 1)desist from unprotected sex for six months 2) to have a minimum of twenty ejaculations over thatperiod. Mr. Dehn was also provided with three semen analysis prescriptions. The first analysis would occur at the end of the twenty ejaculations and the others later during that six-month period with the results to be sent back to Dr. Mazella. Only when the third test gave a negative