Midterm Exam A Answer Sheet HLTHST 314 Spring 2014 NAME: Ashley Crea Essay #1 Word Count: 690

If both physicians violated the applicable standard of care then Ms. Apple could not file a malpractice tort claim to pursue a trial for Dr. Orange, but she could pursue a tort claim against Dr. Pomegranate. In Idaho the statute of limitations for a malpractice is two years after the initial procedure date, and Dr. Orange performed the actual surgery on November 27, 2011, which is now considered to be outside of the allotted time limit (Medical Malpractice Reform Statutes in Idaho, minute 1:00). Ms. Apple could pursue a trial of Mr. Pomegranate because the procedure under this physician was performed on March 2, 2012 because it is still within the two year statute of limitations. There are four elements that must be proven by Ms. Apples attorney to prevail at trial against Dr. Orange. These elements are duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages (Harris, pp. 188-189). Under the element of duty Ms. Apple should have received care from Dr. Orange that is comparable to other physicians and with a comparable skill level. Also, if another doctor was to perform the same procedure under similar circumstances on Ms. Apple then the end results could still be comparable. (Harris, pp. 188) The attorney will need to provide a witness that is an expert in the field who understands the standards of care that Dr. Orange should have been providing (Idahos Tort and Medical Practice Reform Notes, pts. 8-10). For breach of duty the attorney must show that Dr. Orange did not provide the applicable standard of care during Ms. Apples procedure as other patients may have received. It is necessary to again provide expert testimony from a physician of the same community in presenting this evidence (Idahos Tort and Medical Practice Reform Notes, pts. 8-10). Causation must be proved by showing that the procedure, the tubal ligation, was not performed correctly by Dr. Orange, and this was not only the undesired outcome but it was also the cause of a miscarriage. Lastly, because of the poor outcome of the tubal ligation Ms. Apple suffered emotional and financial damages because of the undesired outcome of the procedure. (Harris, pp. 189) If these elements were presented in court one of the main arguments that Dr. Oranges attorney could use to support a defense is that the undesired outcome of the tubal ligation is a risk to the procedure. All procedures come with a risk and this would have been disclosed to Ms. Apple before surgery. The attorney may also defend Dr. Orange by stating that he was not the doctor who read the postoperative x-ray results therefore he would not have known that the desired outcome of the procedure was not achieved. In the event that there was a tort claim of negligence against Dr. Pomegranate the same four elements would need to be proven by Ms. Apples attorney. Both duty and breach of duty would need to be proved by expert testimony by someone of the community who will testify (Harris, pp.188). In this case it would need to be proven that Mr. Pomegranate failed his duty as a radiologist. This would be based on the level of skill that should have used by professionals in the same circumstances and it would be proven that the applicable standard of care was not met for the x-ray tests performed (Idahos Tort and Medical Practice Reform Notes, pts. 8-10). Dr. Pomegranate was in charge of interpreting the test results to Ms. Apple so this evidence can be used to support the causation element, and because of the incorrect reading the patient suffered a

miscarriage (Harris, pp. 189). The financial and emotional damages that Ms. Apple suffered because of the incorrect results would also be used as evidence necessary to prove and support the claim that damages were encountered from the negligence of Dr. Pomegranate (Harris, pp. 189). An attorney in Dr. Pomegranate's defense could argue that he was not the physician performing the procedure so he is not legally responsible for negligence in this case. It could also be argued that again there is always a risk of undesired outcomes to surgical procedures.
Essay #2 Word Count: 327

One reform that I would propose in Idaho would be requiring that the information from a pre-litigation hearing be an element discussed and presented to the court. Although current laws for malpractice torts requires a pre-litigation hearing but the information is not provided to the jury within Idaho. (Medical Malpractice Reform Statutes in Idaho lecture capture, minutes 2:003:00). I feel that per-litigation information is additional evidence and expert testimony that should be used in court. Since pre-litigation sorts through much of the evidence I think that it would paint a clear and non-bias picture for a jury without having a lawyer in front of them potentially trying to sway a verdict one way or another. For Ms. Apple the addition of this reform would provide clear and precise evidence about her case. It would also additional expert information that is non-bias and non-sympathetic to either her case or to either of the physicians. In addition to this it would provide clear evidence of the neglect by Dr. Pomegranate without having an emotional appeals provided by an attorney. In knowing that this reform was in place may force a settlement before the trial to avoid having additional convincing evidence exposed that could convict the doctor. With this proposal providers would fulfill their ethical obligations to patients by increasing the scope of disclosure and respect for autonomy for patients. By including pre litigation hearing information physicians may way to increase their scope of disclosure and respect for autonomy for their patients because anything that is not told to a patient could be determined during this pre hearing process. Physicians need to evaluate all results and exams done on patients to disclose important information and they may pay closer attention to avoid errors and a potential lawsuit (Clinical Ethics, pp.47, 54-57). Physicians would better communicate all necessary information knowing that it could be used as raw evidence in a hearing and patient satisfaction would rise because they want truthful communication.
Essay #3 Word Count: 294

Noneconomic damage is money that is paid out and awarded for pain and suffering, emotional damages, or loss in quality of life that are caused by an incident. These incidents are not just related to medical malpractice but can range from incidents occurring from auto or plane accidents, traumatic injuries, or even animal bites. (Idaho Tort and Medical Malpractice Reform Slides, slide 12). In contrast, economic damages are monies that are awarded because of financial hardships that are suffered from an incident. In 2003 the State of Idaho set a cap of $250,000 that can be awarded to a plaintiff in any tort case, including malpractice. This amount is adjusted for inflation and was raised to $313,000 in 2012. Under certain conditions this cap will not apply and this includes incidents where the defendant is considered to be reckless or

willful or the crime is considered a felony (Idaho Tort and Medical Malpractice Reform Notes, point 13). In the State of Idaho I would not propose any changes to the current tort law for noneconomic damages. The cap for noneconomic damages was put into place for a reason and this was to protect individuals. I think that plaintiffs in many cases can use their attorneys to manipulate the system in an attempt to gain more money than they should actually receive. I do not want to discount the fact that emotional damages can be created from many incidents, but there are times when both economic damages and noneconomic damages are awarded for a cases and this can be a substantial amount of money. I think in a variety of cases the large sums of money that are paid out for compensation can exceed amount of emotional damages that are actually caused by an incident.