The plaintiff Janet Tomick is a female inmate who was incarcerated for the first

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. This is a clear case of negligence tort. All the medical facilities involved in the case resorted to negligence by ignoring the medical condition of Janet Tomick. Because of the negligence, her medical condition deteriorated and the pea sized lump grew up to become a golf-ball sized lump. Even after diagnosis, the medical practitioners did not conduct proper follow up and thus the diagnosis was not conveyed to the next practitioner.

2. The form of negligence seen in this case is sheer gross negligence. The medical practitioners, even after diagnosis and repeated requests of the plaintiff, did not give regards to treatment of her ailment. This eventually led to her condition worsening.

3. The degree of negligence formed in this case is willful, wanton and reckless conduct. This is because even though the practitioners knew that the plaintiff’s ailment had probability of worsening, they did not take appropriate care of her and eventually her condition did worsen.

4. The elements of negligence found in this case are:

https://www.injurylawcolorado.com/legal-library/tort-law-types.html

https://gallagher-law-firm.com/types-of-negligence/

https://attorney-myers.com/2013/10/negligence-gross-negligence-willful-wanton-reckless-conduct/

https://negligence.uslegal.com/

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.