The hospital is liable for the criminal negligence of its employees in the workplace. In this case, the nurse failing to treat a patient in a critical condition. In such cases, the standard proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" with full certainty (Vidanapathirana, 2016). Under the rule of vicarious liability, employers are held liable for their employees' acts, negligence of the nurse who resumes to focusing on where to take the patient other than attending to him. Still, the turning away of the patient violates the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), practitioners are expected that they provide the medical treatment in line with all the necessary knowledge and skill that saves a life in cases of sick patients seeking treatment in emergency rooms from an emergency department. Recommending A 4-mile distance to a critical patient without treatment is apparent negligence.
Although a practitioner is not expected to save a patient's life all the time, they are liable when they do not respond in the interest of an ailing person. If the courts establish that the patient suffered more than 50% due to negligence, breach of duty is owed to him (Pandit, M. & Pandit, S. 2012). Nonetheless, if the practitioner was an independent contractor, the issue could be different because, in that case, hospitals are not liable. Similar to Bing v. Thunig, salaried practitioners represent the fact that hospitals are more than just business entities. The nurse is aware of the condition of the patient making the suing the entity necessary.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There is also a hospital's liability for its negligence and mistakes. The security person performed medical treatment in a hospital with capable practitioners under no supervision. Also, the hospital own negligence in failing to provide enough equipment necessary to save lives makes it liable since the nurse claims the hospital was full and swamped with patients. If it is proven that his acts cause more damage by performing CPR while not having the knowledge to do so, then the actions are punishable (Adusumalli et al. 2018). The guard working on the hospital premises makes him an employee under the control of the entity. As with the Bolam V. Friern Hospital, the courts apply "ordinary skill" in that, the ordinary person providing the care applies competency and necessary skills that save a life. Due to his little or no knowledge, they could be susceptible to wrongdoing allegations or negligible misconduct. Nonetheless, the court determines the causation damages depending on whether the damage was foreseeable or not.
The institution faces the risk of payment of general damages in such a case where the patient damage cannot be assessed monetarily. Therefore, the courts rely on facts of whether the actions of the persons involved worsened the situation or not. In this case, the plaintiff had nothing to do with the situation and indeed had not chosen the hospital as his choice. If, without reasonable doubt, the court establishes that such incidences do not occur without negligence, the hospital pays the damages. Indeed, the loss, in this case, could be physical, which cannot be accessed monetarily, forming the general damages category. Nonetheless, the damage that can't be evaluated precisely in monetary form calls for the court to survey those misfortunes additionally in monetary value (Vidanapathirana, 2016). Such entails the past, present and future agony, uneasiness, cognitive pain, humiliation, and effects on life expectancy. Given that the man was already a 65-year-old, his age indicates the knowledgeability of the possibility to suffer medical conditions due to age, which further makes the institution susceptible to damages due to breach of duty care.
References
Adusumalli, J., Benkhadra, K., & Murad, M. H. (2018). Good Samaritan laws and graduate medical education: a tristate survey. Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes , 2 (4), 336-341.
Pandit, M. S., & Pandit, S. (2009). Medical negligence: Coverage of the profession, duties, ethics, case law, and enlightened defense-A legal perspective. Indian journal of urology: IJU: journal of the Urological Society of India , 25 (3), 372.
Vidanapathirana, M. (2016). What Do We Know About Medical Negligence? Global Journal of Nursing & Forensic Studies . 1. doi: 1000 e105. 10.4172/2572-0899.1000e105.
