The plaintiff Janet Tomick is a female inmate who was incarcerated for the first
ID: 139463 • Letter: T
Question
The plaintiff Janet Tomick is a female inmate who was incarcerated for the first time at the Ohio reformatory for women. She presented at the medical clinic for an initial physical exam on May 26 1989. The medical director, Dr John Evans, preformed a ”cursory” breast exam and reported no unusual findings. On May 27th 1989 Ms Tomick found a pea sized lump in her right breast. Over the course of the next month, the plaintiff consistently signed into the clinic list and cited the reason for requested treatment. She was eventually re-examined by Dr.Evans on June 28th 1989 and reported that she had “a mass on her right wrist” and she was given Benadryl for allergies. He referred her to Ohio state university hospital but never informed her of this. She was never transferred to the hospital and later was re-examined at Franklin County pre release center on September 28 1989. The nurse there recorded a “golf ball” sized lump in her right breast. On October 4 1989, Dr. John Bradley examines her and advised plaintiff she should be transported to Ohio State University Hospital for a mammogram examination. A mammogram was preformed on October 27 1989 and a biopsy was preformed November 9 1989. Eventually after pathology reports were completed, surgeon Dr.Isadore Lidsky preformed a modified radical mastectomy in which nearly all of the plaintiffs right breast was removed.1) Is this case considered to be a tort? If so Why?
2) What are the forms of negligence seen in this case?Explain
3) What are the degrees of negligence found in this case?Explain
4)What are the elements of negligence found in this case? Explain. The plaintiff Janet Tomick is a female inmate who was incarcerated for the first time at the Ohio reformatory for women. She presented at the medical clinic for an initial physical exam on May 26 1989. The medical director, Dr John Evans, preformed a ”cursory” breast exam and reported no unusual findings. On May 27th 1989 Ms Tomick found a pea sized lump in her right breast. Over the course of the next month, the plaintiff consistently signed into the clinic list and cited the reason for requested treatment. She was eventually re-examined by Dr.Evans on June 28th 1989 and reported that she had “a mass on her right wrist” and she was given Benadryl for allergies. He referred her to Ohio state university hospital but never informed her of this. She was never transferred to the hospital and later was re-examined at Franklin County pre release center on September 28 1989. The nurse there recorded a “golf ball” sized lump in her right breast. On October 4 1989, Dr. John Bradley examines her and advised plaintiff she should be transported to Ohio State University Hospital for a mammogram examination. A mammogram was preformed on October 27 1989 and a biopsy was preformed November 9 1989. Eventually after pathology reports were completed, surgeon Dr.Isadore Lidsky preformed a modified radical mastectomy in which nearly all of the plaintiffs right breast was removed.
1) Is this case considered to be a tort? If so Why?
2) What are the forms of negligence seen in this case?Explain
3) What are the degrees of negligence found in this case?Explain
4)What are the elements of negligence found in this case? Explain.
1) Is this case considered to be a tort? If so Why?
2) What are the forms of negligence seen in this case?Explain
3) What are the degrees of negligence found in this case?Explain
4)What are the elements of negligence found in this case? Explain. 1) Is this case considered to be a tort? If so Why?
2) What are the forms of negligence seen in this case?Explain
3) What are the degrees of negligence found in this case?Explain
4)What are the elements of negligence found in this case? Explain.
Explanation / Answer
1, Tort law is the law that seek compensation for wrongs committed against to someone..There are many types of tort that form the basis of the majority of civil lawsuits..That is negligence,intentional reflection of emotional distress, Assult,Battery,Trespass,products liability
This case comes under negligent torts..Because this harm is not intentional one..The elements that failed that duty or violated a promise or obligation to the plaintiff ( A person who brings a case against another in a court of laws)
2, In this case Dr.john evans not performed any thorogh checkup for the Patient..He performed a ' cursory' breast exam and reported no unusual findings..This is a type of negligence under Tort law..on next day itself tomick found a peace sized lump in her right breast..so again month of June Dr.evans again re examined her and reported a mass on her right wrist and benadryl given for allergies..so this torts is a wrongful thing done by providers against patient due to negligence..
3, Degrees of negligence come under categories or grades ranging from slight negligence to gross,willful,reckless, wanton negligence..This case will come under catagorize of gross negligence..It is a very great negligence by lack of any care..it means that wrongdoer completely indifferent to his action and displays an disregard for the rights or well-being of others..lack of concern might result this category of negligence..
4, There are 5 elements found in negligence case.. this is duty,breach of duty,cause infact.proximate cause,damages.
This case will come under damages.. because the plaintiff duty legally recognised to harm,in the form of physical injury to a person due to lack or failure to exercise reasonable care must results in actual damages to a person to whom the defendant owed a duty of care..
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.