IHP 420 Describe the Case Worksheet
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
IHP-420-X3
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by PrivateRiverDragonfly6
IHP 420 Describe the Case Worksheet
Issue
(What
facts
and
circumstances
brought these parties to court?)
●
Who are the
parties
in this case:
plaintiff and defendant?
The parties in this case are Arturo Iturrakle and
the Hilo Medical Center, USA
The plaintiff: Estate of Arturo Iturrakle and his
sister/caretaker Rosalinda Iturrakle
The defendant: Hilo Medical Center, Medtronic
and Dr. Ricketson
●
What
facts and circumstances
brought
these parties to court?
In January 2001, Mr Arturo to HMC for an
assessment of increased weakness to both legs
causing several falls. Dr Ricketson diagnosed him
with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis L 4-5 with
stenosis that could potentially be relieved
through spinal stenosis fusion surgery which
involves implanting 2 rods into the spine to form
a bilateral fixation to be performed on Monday
January 29, 2001. Dr Ricketson ordered an M8
Titanium CD Horizon Kit from Medtronic who did
not have all the equipment at one location.
Therefore, they had to send two separate
shipments, one from Memphis and one from
Tulane that both arrives at HMC Saturday June
27, 2001. Upon arrival, the equipment was sent
for sterilization and then to the Operating Room.
However, the OR staff failed to do inventory of
contents of the kit which is required per HMC
policy. On the day of surgery, Vicki Barry, a
surgical nurse informed Dr, Ricketson that an
inventory was not done on the kit as he continues
to proceed with the surgery and removes a
portion of Mr. Arturo’s vertebrae. Once it was
time to attach the two titanium rods to the pt’s
spine, the surgical staff informed the Dr. of the
missing rods as they searched the hospital and
placed a call to Medtronic, who informed them
that although he was unable to verify if the rods
had been shipped that he could personally
deliver them to HMC within 90 minutes. This
information was delivered to Dr. Ricketson as he
determined it would be too risky to delay the
procedure and instead opted to create a
makeshift rod with from material of the kit.
Janelle Feldmyere, a nurse present during the
surgery, reported the incident to her supervisors.
She was advised it was the surgeon’s
responsibility to provide that vital information to
the patient. Since he failed to do so, Nurse
Feldmyere contacted Mr. Arturo and presented to
an attorney. Dr. Ricketson implanted the
makeshift rod into Mr. Arturo and failed to inform
him or his family. As a result of the Dr Ricketson’s
negligence, Mr. Arturo experienced multiple falls,
shattering the makeshift shaft and he had to
undergo multiple surgical procedures in order to
remove the fragments and eventually implant the
correct titanium rod. This caused the pt’s
condition to deteriorate and the newly implanted
rod became dislodged and he had to undergo
two more additional surgeries. After several
others, Mr. Arturo eventually required a
permanent catheterization and succumbed to a
urinary tract infection.
●
Is the court deciding a
question of fact
—i.e., are the parties in dispute over
what happened?
Or is it a
question of law
—i.e., is the
court unsure which rule to apply to
these facts?
The court is deciding a question of law by
attempting to decide who is responsible for the
actions taken and how much each party will be
awarded in damages. The appeal filed by the
plaintiffs is challenging the Circuit Courts ruling
the HMC is not liable based on the interpretation
of law by not awarding damages based on the
recommendations of the jury.
●
Which facts of the case raise issues?
HMC was liable and negligent for granting Dr.
Ricketson hospital credentials without checking
his malpractice background. Both HMC and staff
were negligent for failing to inventory the kit and
for implanting a non-surgical device into the
patient. Dr. Ricketson’s failure to abide by and
uphold the Medical Code of Ethics.
●
What are the
nonissues
?
The Guard at the door after surgery
The Kit coming from two separate
locations/shipments
●
Other
The good-faith settlement with Hawaii
Orthopedics, Inc
A promissory note of payment that was
contingent based on the outcome of the
Appellant’s claims.
Modified from
http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/irac.html
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