Comparison of Haimes and Vandevender Cases

3666 Words15 Pages
comparison of haimes and vandevender cases | Judith Richardson Haimes v. Temple University Hospital and Cheryl L. Vandevender v. Sheetz, Inc | Critical thinking in the legal environment: Torts & product liability | | | UMUC | Introduction Judith Richardson Haimes of the Haimes v. Temple University Hospital, and Cheryl L. Vandevender of the Vandevender v. Sheetz, Inc cases have one major thing in common with their cases. Judith Haimes is suing Temple University for punitive damages for the loss her psychic powers due to the procedures she underwent while being treated at the hospital. Thus she is seeking recompense for not being able to work. Cheryl Vandevender is also suing Sheetz, Inc for damages relating to her inability to work due to injuries suffered at the work place. The two cases differ in the tangibility of being able to prove who the fault is from. For Mrs. Haimes, psychic powers are not readily and justifiably proven. On the other hand, Ms Vandevender’s case can be tangibly substantiated. ridiculous What are the facts: The facts in a legal case are the pertinent basics having a bearing on the dispute at hand, (Kubasek, Brennan & Browne, 2009). In the case of Haimes v. Temple University Hospital, there are many facts but the pertinent facts are few. According to Haimes v. Temple University Hospital (1986) this was basically a medical malpractice action claim that was filed ten years after the event took place. It took a long time to get to the courts due to the defendants refusal to settle the case through an alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Mrs. Judith Haimes claimed that she had an allergic reaction to the dye she was injected with for the purpose of having a CAT scan. Prior to Dr. Hart injecting the dye, Mrs. Haimes informed the doctor that she had suffered allergic reactions including nausea, vomiting, hives and

More about Comparison of Haimes and Vandevender Cases

Open Document