Snow Storm Lawsuit

Snow Storm Lawsuit

Legal Considerations

The first legal consideration in this case is related to corporate liability. The hospital itself is negligent under this doctrine. Corporate negligence is the failure to provide the equipment, facilities, and staff to carry out the duties of the corporation in accordance with the established standard of conduct. Corporate negligence is evident in this case in regard to the failure to ensure that sufficient healthcare personnel were available to provide the established standard of care to the patients in the facility. Moreover, the personnel that were required to remain at the hospital from the day shift were likely not performing at their peak after already working their own shift; which could result in errors in patient care. The nurse managers should have been proactive and had a plan in place in the event of severe weather such as forming a team of healthcare personnel who were willing to come to work at the beginning of the storm and stay until they could be relieved. This team should consist of a variety of personnel in sufficient numbers to allow for some personnel to rest while others work. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the hospital to ensure proper personnel coverage regardless of the circumstances. Policies and procedures for handling this type of crisis must be in place and utilized as needed (Olson, 1991).

The second legal consideration in this case is vicarious liability (respondeat superior). In this case a patient died as a result of be administered the wrong medication and several patients were injured from falling out of bed. The hospital could be held vicariously liable for the act or failure to act on the part of its employee. It is clear that the incorrect medication was administered which resulted in the patient's death despite the hospital's claim that the patient had an allergic reaction to food, which does not seem probable because the patient has no history of allergies. It also appears that a failure to act led to the minor injuries of the patients who feel out of bed. The hospital and its employees have a legal duty to provide reasonable care; in this case there was evidence of a breach of duty which proves negligence. Breach of duty could be proven through expert testimony specifically in regard to the cause of death. It also appears that the act that led to the death of the patient meets the conditions of Res Ipsa Loquitur according to Showalter; the death would not have occurred if the patient was not given the incorrect medication, the employee was in control of the medication, and the patient did not contribute to the medication error. Because the hospital is responsible for the performance of its employees this doctrine applies, especially when considering that the hospital failed to provide sufficient staff operating at their peak performance (Lodmell & Lodmell, 2004).

Injury and causation is the third legal consideration in this case. In this case several patients fell out of bed which resulted ...