Analyze the above case by discussing the following points. 1. Facts - what happe

Question

Analyze the above case by discussing the following points.
1. Facts - what happened
2. Issues - what the issues of the case we're
3. Court Decision
4. Do you agree or disagree with the Court's decision

record was "certainly something that should not have been done." McCroskey did not simply back- chart to Makley. At this time, it was that the original chart had mysteriously van The problem arose on Oct Moskovitz filed a complaint for d ing to ascertain information relative to a claim for medical malpractice. Moskovitz claime that she had never refused to have the tum biopsied, but discrepancies were noted medical record di date a trivial note in a patient's medical record. anished ober 21, 1988, when discovery seek- Instead McCroskey's actions took place in the con text of a patient's death, which resulted in a coro autopsy, peer review activities, publicity and several legal actions. McCroskey was the attending physician responsible for the accu- racy of the patient's medical record, and yet he engaged in conduct that cast doubt upon the medical record's integrity. Under these circum- stances, the Board was justified in considering McCroskey's conduct to violate the standard of care In his January 30, 1989, deposition, N produced a copy of page 7 of Figgie's office That copy was identical to the copy ultimately recovered by the plaintiff's counsel from the radiation department records at University Hos pitals. The copy produced by Makley contained a typewritten entry dated September 21, 1987 which stated: "Mrs. Moskovitz comes in today for her evaluation on the radiographs reviewed with Dr. York. He was not impressed that [the mass on Moskovitz's left legl was anything other than a benign problem, perhaps a fibroma. We Figgie and York] will therefore elect to continue to observe 26 FALSIFYING RECORDS Citation: Moskovitz v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 635 N.E.2d 331 (Ohio 1994) Facts On November 10, 1987, Figgie removed a left Achilles tendon mass from Moskovitz. The tumor was found to be a rare form of cancer. A bone scan revealed that the cancer had metastasized However, Figgie's photostatic copy revealed that a line had been drawn through the sentence We will therefore elect to continue to observe." The copy further revealed that beneath the entry Figgie had interlineated a handwritten notation: "As she does not want excisional Bx [biopsy] we Moskovitz's care was transferred to Figgie's part ner, Makley, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in oncology at University Hospitals. Makley received Figgie's original office chart, which contained seven pages of notes documenting Moskovitz's course of treatment from 1985 through Novem ber 1987. Makley thereafter referred Moskovitz to radiation therapy at University Hospitals and sent along a copy of page 7 of Figgie's office notes to the radiation department at University l observe." The September 21, 1987, entry was followed by a typewritten entry dated September 24, 1987, which states: "I [Figgie] reviewed the X-rays with Dr. York. I discussed the clinical find ings with him. We [Figgie and York] felt this to be benign, most likely a fibroma. He [York] said that we could observe and I concur." At some point, Figgie also had added to the September 24, 1987, entry a handwritten notation, above," referring to the September 21, 1987, handwritten notation that Moskovitz did not want Hospitals One month later, Makley's office forwarded the chart to Figgie's office; a copy was then sent to Moskovitz's psychologist. In January 1988, Makley's secretary requested that Figgie's office return the

Explanation / Answer

Facts- This is a case including therapeutic misbehavior and the demise of an elderly lady, Mrs. Margaret Moskovitz. The certainties offering ascend to this interest include the lead of Dr. Harry E. Figgie III, appellee, who neglected to convenient analyze and treat a threatening tumor to Moskovitz's left side leg and changed certain records to disguise the way that misbehavior had happened.

Dr. Figgie neglected to prescribe at the suitable time that the development on the decedent's surrendered lower leg be worked over to decide if it was a threatening tumor. The offended party affirmed [by recorded deposition] he never made such a proposal to her. Dr. Figgie's office graph, which is the essential reference material in breaking down a doctor's direct, is loaded with logical inconsistencies and irregularities. The board did not discover Dr. Figgie's statement influential in clarifying or giving a premise to defending these abnormalities. His secretary's phone notes were of faulty probative esteem.

Issues- This interest presents four issues for our thought

a). Were the compensatory harms granted for the survival activity and for wrongful demise over the top?

b). Should prejudgment intrigue have been permitted?

c). Was it appropriate to authorize appealing party's lawyer under Civ.R. 11?

d). . Were correctional harms, and the sum granted, suitable and appropriate on the actualities of this case?

Figgie has not requested and, in this manner, the finding that Figgie was careless in his care and treatment of Moskovitz isn't at issue.

Court decision- The court of requests held that for correctional harms to be granted, litigant was required to demonstrate "a mischief unmistakable from the therapeutic carelessness assert and inferable exclusively to the charged modification of medicinal records."

The court of bids' dominant part abandoned the honor of corrective harms for two reasons. In the first place, the court of bids' lion's share discovered that corrective harms were not accessible the situation being what it is of this case, since Figgie's demonstration of modifying and crushing records did not specifically make real mischief appealing party - i.e., records vanished and were changed after the analysis of terminal disease and the modification and vanishing of the records did not antagonistically influence litigant's cases. Second, the court of claims' greater part found that appealing party neglected to build up a privilege to correctional harms.

Opinion- I personally agree with the court decision because to prove for the punitive damages appealing party was required to demonstrate a mischief particular from the medicinal carelessness assert and inferable exclusively to the claimed adjustment of restorative records.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.