Hall V Hilbun

535 Words3 Pages
Hall v Hilbun Tina Henry Rasmussen College Author Note This research is being submitted on November 9, 2012, for Heather in Medical Law and Ethics course. In the case of Hall v Hilbun I do believe that the physician was at fault for the four D’s of negligence. The four D’s of negligence are Duty; which the person has to show the physician and patient relationship existed. Derelict; has to show the physician failed to comply with standards of a physician. Direct cause; the person has to show that the damages were a direct cause to the injury or death. Damages; the person has to prove that there were sufficient damages they endured related to the physician. The first one is duty; the patient just has to show that there was a patient and physician relationship that existed. Clearly she can prove that there was a patient and physician relationship. The physician did perform an exploratory laparotomy on her for a small bowel obstruction after the patient came in complaining of severe abdominal pain. Second, the patient has to prove that the physician was derelict. This means the patient has to prove that the physician failed to comply with standards of a physician. The physician left a sponge in her abdominal area which they later say is not the cause of her death but it caused severe abdominal pain and her and her husband kept reporting the pain to the nurses and morphine was kept given. If the patient didn’t die from heart failure first then she would had complications persisting from the sponge left in her body. Her body would have rejected the sponge and serious complications would have aroused. I believe this can be proved by not only not checking on his patient before he left the hospital which he then would have found out that she has been in severe pain and he would have been there when she started turning blue and saved her life. The
Open Document