Unit 4 Application Assignment - Domko
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Park University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
517
Subject
Health Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by DeanTankMonkey27
Rodgers v. St. Mary’s Hospital
Keri M. Domko
Park University
HA517DL: Legal and Ethical Issues in Healthcare Administration
Dr. James Baird
November 19, 2023
Module 5: Medical Records
HA517
1
Facts
On May 27, 1986, Kalan Rodgers, Sr. filed a medical malpractice suit against St. Mary’s
Hospital (the hospital) along with the obstetricians and radiologists assigned to his wife,
Brenda’s, care. Brenda Rodgers died two days after giving birth to their son. The circuit court of
Macon County entered a summary judgment in favor of the hospital on May 13, 1988. The
decision against the hospital was not appealed by Mr. Rodgers but he proceeded to trial against
the obstetricians and radiologists on June 10, 1988. The jury awarded $1.2 million in favor of
Mr. Rodgers against the obstetricians but did not find the radiologists liable. Mr. Rodgers did not
appeal the finding against the radiologists.
In September 1987, Mr. Rodgers filed a separate complaint for damages against the
hospital alleging that the hospital breached its statutory duty to preserve for five years all the X
rays taken of Mrs. Rodgers.
He claimed that the X rays were crucial to proving his case against
the radiologists and the obstetricians. The circuit court dismissed the claim without prejudice.
The complaint was amended and brought to action against the hospital in May 1989, the
day after he reached the $800,000 settlement with the obstetricians. Mr. Rodgers alleged that his
wife’s death was caused by a sigmoid colonic volvulus and that the condition appeared on an X
ray that the hospital had a duty to preserve. Mr. Rodgers stated that if the X ray had been present,
he would have been awarded the additional $400,000 from the $1.2 million award in the case
against the obstetricians and radiologist
(Justia Law, n.d.).
Issue
Did the hospital fail to maintain compliance with the X ray Retention Act.
Would the
presence of the X ray in question have altered the judgement in the case against the obstetricians
and radiologists. Is the X ray Retention Act merely an administrative regulation to be enforced
exclusively by the Department of Public Health? According to the Illinois General Assembly
(n.d.),
hospitals which produce photographs of the human anatomy by the X-ray or roentgen
process on the request of licensed physicians for use by them in the diagnosis or treatment of a
patient's illness or condition shall retain such photographs or films as part of their regularly
maintained records for a period of 5 years provided that retention of said photographs or film
may be by microfilm or other recognized means of minification that does not adversely affect
their use for diagnostic purposes.
Module 5: Medical Records
HA517
2
Rule
The main rule that allowed the courts to affirm the appellate decision to allow Mr.
Rodgers claim for the additional $400,000 is known as res judicata. According to Cornell Law
(n.d.),
res judicata
is the principle that a
cause of action
may not be relitigated once it has been
judged on the merits. "Finality" is the term which refers to when a court renders a final judgment
on the merits. Res judicata also does not pertain to co-parties, therefore, Mr. Rodgers is allowed
to proceed with his claim against the hospital and radiologists.
Analysis
The X ray Retention Act is meant to hinder medical providers from destroying or losing
potential evident that could be essential to a court case. According to Pitzer (2012), as far as
causation, the plaintiff must plead facts that would show that: (1) the loss of the medical records
caused the plaintiff to be unable to prove the underlying claim, and (2) but for the loss of the
evidence, the plaintiff had a reasonable probability of success. For this reason, Mr. Rodgers was
allowed to proceed with his claim and res judicata does not pertain.
Conclusion
Mr. Rodgers’ new complaint is not only allowed but is valid and does not go against res
judicata because the new matter was not concluded in the original trial. The court must determine
whether the loss of the X ray had any negative impact in Mr. Rodgers’ case. Hospitals must be
held accountable for the protection and retention of patient medical records to include imaging.
This could fall in the category of medical negligence. According to Ratzan (2022),
even the most
respected medical experts can be guilty of medical negligence. Although medical negligence is
usually accidental, it can still cause tremendous and lasting harm to the victim.
Module 5: Medical Records
HA517
3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
References
Cornell Law. (n.d.).
Res judicata
. Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/res_judicata
Illinois General Assembly. (n.d.).
Illinois General Assembly
. Illinois Compiled Statutes.
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1236
Justia Law. (n.d.).
Rodgers v. St. Mary’s Hosp. of Decatur
. Justia Law.
https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1992/70722-7.html
Pitzer, J. C. (2012, December).
Medical Litigation Newsletter - Hinshawlaw.com
. Medical
Litigation Newsletter.
https://www.hinshawlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/Newsletters/MedicalLitigationNewslet
ter_120112.pdf
Ratzan, S. N. (2022, September 19).
Can you sue a hospital? what you need to know
. Ratzan
Weissman Boldt. https://www.rwblawyers.com/news/can-you-sue-a-hospital
Module 5: Medical Records
HA517
4