Description:
Please read case study and respond by answering all questions.
Patricia Ann Dooley, the plaintiff, was under the care of Dr. Skodnek, a psychiatrist. Dooley had been hospitalized following an unsuccessful suicide attempt. She remained under the care of Dr. Skodnek for three years, during which time she was prescribed Mellaril, an antipsychotic drug. It was undisputed at trial that the Mellaril caused her to suffer pigmentary retinopathy, causing her to be rendered legally blind. At trial, Dooley presented evidence of both negligence on the part of the defendant and lack of her informed consent.
During the trial, the defendant testified consistently that he recognized that Mellaril could cause pigmentary retinopathy, a condition that could result in diminished vision and blindness. Indeed, his knowledge was demonstrated by his very actions in discontinuing the patient's medication upon learning of the patient's vision difficulties and referring the patient to an ophthalmologist. Critical in the evaluation of the defendant's testimony is the opinion of Dr. Halpern, a board-certified psychiatrist who testified that Dr. Skodnek had in all aspects followed good and accepted medical practice. The expert witness even testified to the appropriate discontinuance of the medication when vision is first impaired, stating "You have to stop the Mellaril long before pigmentary retinitis goes to blindness."
There was testimony that the patient was already taking Mellaril when she was first treated by Dr. Skodnek and that he refrained from advising her about the more serious side effects because of her emotional problems and suicidal state. However, Dr. Skodnek testified that he had informed the patient, when she was in a condition to comprehend, that there were some adverse side effects associated with the medication and that she was to notify him immediately if she experienced vision changes. This failure to warn immediately was also supported by Dr. Halpern, who stated that it was inadvisable while Dooley was so acutely depressed to recount to her all the detailed horrors of this medication and its side effects.
After the presentation of all the evidence in the case, the trial court granted the plaintiffs motion for judgment as a matter of law on both theories. Dr. Skodnek appealed.
Legal Questions
1. Was there a sufficient controversy on which to try this lawsuit in a court of law?
2. Was an expert witness needed for the jury to understand the issues being tried?
3. Was Dr. Skodnek correct in appealing the lower court's decision?
4. How would you rule in such a case as presented by these facts?
Patricia Ann Dooley, the plaintiff, was under the care of Dr. Skodnek, a psychiatrist. Dooley had been hospitalized following an unsuccessful suicide attempt. She remained under the care of Dr. Skodnek for three years, during which time she was prescribed Mellaril, an antipsychotic drug. It was undisputed at trial that the Mellaril caused her to suffer pigmentary retinopathy, causing her to be rendered legally blind. At trial, Dooley presented evidence of both negligence on the part of the defendant and lack of her informed consent.
During the trial, the defendant testified consistently that he recognized that Mellaril could cause pigmentary retinopathy, a condition that could result in diminished vision and blindness. Indeed, his knowledge was demonstrated by his very actions in discontinuing the patient's medication upon learning of the patient's vision difficulties and referring the patient to an ophthalmologist. Critical in the evaluation of the defendant's testimony is the opinion of Dr. Halpern, a board-certified psychiatrist who testified that Dr. Skodnek had in all aspects followed good and accepted medical practice. The expert witness even testified to the appropriate discontinuance of the medication when vision is first impaired, stating "You have to stop the Mellaril long before pigmentary retinitis goes to blindness."
There was testimony that the patient was already taking Mellaril when she was first treated by Dr. Skodnek and that he refrained from advising her about the more serious side effects because of her emotional problems and suicidal state. However, Dr. Skodnek testified that he had informed the patient, when she was in a condition to comprehend, that there were some adverse side effects associated with the medication and that she was to notify him immediately if she experienced vision changes. This failure to warn immediately was also supported by Dr. Halpern, who stated that it was inadvisable while Dooley was so acutely depressed to recount to her all the detailed horrors of this medication and its side effects.
After the presentation of all the evidence in the case, the trial court granted the plaintiffs motion for judgment as a matter of law on both theories. Dr. Skodnek appealed.
Legal Questions
1. Was there a sufficient controversy on which to try this lawsuit in a court of law?
2. Was an expert witness needed for the jury to understand the issues being tried?
3. Was Dr. Skodnek correct in appealing the lower court's decision?
4. How would you rule in such a case as presented by these facts?
Click Here To Get More On This Essay!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment