When a person acts carelessly and causes harm to another individual, the careless individual should be legally liable under the “negligence” legal principle. Negligence is a legal theory that one should prove before holding a company or an individual legally responsible for the damages suffered. In most claims from injuries and accidents, one must prove negligence. In the Niles v. City of San Rafael Case Study, there were two acts of negligence. The pediatrician was actively negligent in failing to examine, check the chart, and admit Kelly. Also, the hospital was actively negligent in failing to treat Kelly properly when he arrived at the hospital and also failing to issue instructions in writing to Kelly’s father
The director of the pediatric outpatient clinic at Mt. Zion Hospital, Dr. Haskins, was negligent while providing his legal duty of care to Kelly. His failure to attend to Kelly demonstrates negligence of the proper care standard that a reasonably prudent person would have offered in the same circumstances (Hoondong Lee, 2016. Dr. Haskins failed to attend to Kelly and instead sent him home without examining him or looking at his chart. The resident physician had marked on Kelly’s chart that he needed an admission at the hospital. Also, the intern had indicated that Kelly was “extremely groggy” on his chart. Additionally, the first examination indicated that Kelly’s pulse was 62, but it later dropped 48, while the normal 11-year-old child should have their pulse rate varying between 60 and 100 (Justia US Law, n.d.). Therefore, the pediatrician, Dr. Haskins, breached his legal duty by not admitting Kelly, thus making him not receive the required treatment in food time. As a result, Kelly was paralyzed from the neck downwards, except for slight movements of his right foot and hand.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is a normal practice of a health care facility to give a sheet indicating symptoms that would require the patient to return to the hospital when the patient with a possible head injury is permitted to leave the emergency room. In this scenario, the injury sheet listed seven symptoms, and Kelly had five already before he was released from the hospital. Besides, Kelly’s father was not given the sheet in question. The hospital acted negligently by failing to issue the sheet listing symptoms to Kelly’s father. Such an act is a clear demonstration of an improper standard of care required in such a situation (Hoondong Lee, 2016. Kelly’s father relied on the advice he received from Mt. Zion Hospital, thus causing a delay in seeking proper medical attention for his son (Justia US Law, n.d.). Also, when it was discovered that Kelly had intracranial bleeding and required a surgery, there was no neurosurgeon in the hospital at the moment, hence resulting in further delays. It is the delay in question that led to current Kelly’s health condition.
Conclusion
There was a breach of duty by both the hospital and the pediatrician. Dr. Haskins gave Kelly’s father the wrong advice to go with his son back home instead of admitting him. The pediatrician did not examine the patient or check his chart, indicating a breach of duty that any reasonably prudent person would do under such circumstances. Additionally, the hospital demonstrated an improper standard of care required by not having a neurosurgeon present when Kelly needed surgery. It failed to issue written instruction to Kelly’s father when releasing him from the emergency room. It is the acts of negligence in question that led to Kelly’s health damages. Therefore, Kelly should be given monetary compensation for all the expenses since the medical condition is irreversible.
References
Hoondong Lee. (2016). Subjective elements justifying of criminal negligence. HUFS Law Review , 40(4), 209-222. https://doi.org/10.17257/hufslr.2016.40.4.209
Justia US Law. (n.d.). Niles v. City of San Rafael . Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/42/230.html
