View the step-by-step solution to:

County Hospital Obstetrics Case Facts: Jane Doe was an obstetrical inpatient in the Women's Center of County Hospital. Doe was in her ninth month of...

Please help me on these law cases! I am really struggling!!!

County Hospital Obstetrics Case Facts: Jane Doe was an obstetrical inpatient in the Women's Center of County Hospital. Ms. Doe was in her ninth month of pregnancy and being attended by Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones anticipated'a high-risk birth because of significant and recent illegal drug use by Ms. Doe. For this reason she was admitted to the hospital earlier than otherwise indicated. After three days in the maternify unit, Ms. Doe announced that she was tired of the place and going home. Her physician, Dr. Jones, wai contacted who attempted to talk her out of leaving as did the staff at the Women's Center. It was noted that Ms. Doe left the hospital "against medical advice." - The following evening, Ms. Doe returned to the Women's Center complaining of pain and demanding to be admitted to the facility. Ms. Doe seemed to be high$ intoxicated at the time and used abusive language toward all within hearing range. Dr. Jones was contacted, but he refused to admit Ms. Doe, saying that he had no obligation to treat her since she had discharged herself against medical advice the day before. He was told that she appeared to be drunk and was complaining of ibdominal pain. He responded that she should see a physician ifshe could find one who would see her. @1g_qg"ied admission, Ms. Doe was driven to a nearby hospital by a friend where she was admittedlhi6T$h-Th-e efi??!?nffi-o'm. She was in labor and experiencing complitations. The i_nfant rvas 9elivered by C-section but could not be saved. Delay in obtaining medical attention for the .oihe, *us tnougnt to contnbute to the mtant's death. Ms. Doe filed suit against the hospital, the staff of the women's center, and Dr. Jones. d Background: ' County Hospital had opened the Women's Center approximately 12 months before the incident. The Center was a freestanding building on the hospital's campus, and it was connected to the main hospital by an enclosed corridor. The Womenllenter was not a separatelv licensed facility. Its beds and services cons.idgr:d Part ol gouqly_Hgspital, and were reflectp<Lon tLLq-hosp4Al's license. The -main hospital [email protected]esttraumarating.Thepersonnelinthe-ERierewell- trained in handling cases arriving at the ER. ThE-fospiieffieafnever been charged with failing to admit a patient when appropriate, nor had there been any past violations of the EMTALA. The staff at the Women's Center were not as familiar with procedures for handling arriving emergencies, since it had not been anticipated that ernergencies would arrive at the Women's Center. -Dr. Jones was t!94!gt ig 3_!2-physician OB-/QYN group, all of whom had full privileges at 9qgLry_Uglpital. Dr. fones wairelativc-ly -new fo tlie gi group, and handled a disproport '- oDortlonate share ot mAlgdt;AMedicaid patients. Ms. Doe had been a aifncutt patient from day-oni, and Dr. Jglgqlegr,etted havins accented resoonsibilitv for her care. ---:-fr;--D---4-*ffiIhe emergency staff at the hospital. As an indigent/sometime Medicaid patient, she had used the ER for primary care needs on numerous occasions and had been treated for a drug 9-v:ldory apploximately a y_e,ar_befo,r-e tbg incident. -4 Instructions: \ Discuss thq parties and theiraclions. For each party and eqg! jgjlon SgltiiLnegligence, liability, and/orrvrong-doingiEiere there is.negligence, lie.bility, etc.,-what r?mffi6lil7"f",',seJare uuuitan-" to - thE defendent? What.dutigs- are requircd{f each party, and Wfur!{Uli_eq Were ne€lected, inap_p-ropriately [email protected];rt, etc.? Where an action is deemed not to constitute negligence, liability, etc., whlnot?-What eGment(s) are missingry:-*i--- .---' '" , - --- .--- - -what type o-(._gtiggg"qD *ytd.nt, i.ey'J'p.lg!lleg!!g99ce,[email protected], etc.? Identify all 7z doctrines)such as borroled serV?n#fteFine,antlcaplain€fthe ship doctrine, which may apply to this case? USiaidwfr-y or why not. IdentiS cofrSgptslsuch as as res-ipvJnryittr or respondeat suggior, which may apply to this case. State why or why not. ) -\ There is no absolutely correct answer for the case. The objective is to [email protected] possi6lq-,\ answers. It is helpful to- look at the situatien frem the view of an advocate for the plaintiff and from the view of an advocate for each defendent.
Background image of page 1
The Lobbyist and the Hospital Association A state hospital association wished to retain the services of a registered lobbyist to act on the association's behalf during the upcoming state legislative session. While the hospital association had an interest in many bills which could come before the legislature, it was particularly eager to get a specific bill out of committee. The bill had been introduced twice before, but had never had sufficient support to get out of the House Health Services Committee. The committee had twelve members plus the chairman who tended to vote only in the case of a tie. During the last session, the vote was 8 against, 4 in favor of recommending the bill to the full house. The hospital association's executive director and three of its board members (all CEOs of major hospitals in the state) served as a committee to interview several well- known state lobbyists with outstanding track records representing health care providers interested in legislation before the General Assembly. All had at one time or other represented the state medical association, the state nursing association, the state nursing home association, the state hospital association, and other major groups in the health care industry. During his interview, one of the lobbyists, John Silvertongue, assured the committee that he could deliver the votes to get their bill out of committee and on to the floor of the house. Based on his experience and reputation, the assurance was quite credible to the committee. The committee selected Silvertongue to exclusively represent the hospital association before the legislature during the upcoming session. His retainer was $150,000. During the legislative session, the bill failed to get out of committee by a vote of 7 to 6, after the chairman voted against to break the tie. Silvertongue claimed that he hadT votes in favor until an incident at one of the association hospitals caused a legislator to change her mind. The hospital association felt that it had been let down by Silvertongue. The board of directors of the association voted to sue Silvertongue. Instructions: taWahvAW vit)t 4\n\i/ mp\vn*fE USll4 q t4x ? 4.P r'-WW\4 h htry|- toVWJ \sJ- Discuss the case in viewpoint of each party.
Background image of page 2

Recently Asked Questions

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.


Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question