Confirm favorite deletion?
Health Law Keyed to Furrow
Thompson v. Washington Hospital Center
Facts
During Thompson's (Plaintiff) 1986 abortion and tubal ligation surgery at Washington Hospital Center (WHC) (Defendant), the anesthesiologist improperly inserted an endotracheal tube. By the time the mistake was found, Plaintiff suffered brain injuries that put her in a permanent vegetative state. Part of Plaintiff's suit claimed that Defendant was negligent by not providing an end-tidal carbon monoxide monitor, which would have warned the doctors that Plaintiff was not getting enough oxygen to her brain. Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Steen, testified that he believed monitors were required in operating rooms by 1986, the monitors were available at his hospital, and that monitors were "recommended" in publications he read and described their use as an "emerging" practice. Evidence was shown that at least four other hospitals were using monitors by 1986. Defendant's expert testified that Defendant used monitors and that many hospitals were currently having them installed. A requisition form for monitors submitted by Defendant's Department of Anesthesiology chairman stated that Defendant would "fail to meet the national standard of care" if monitors were not provided. The jury found Defendant negligent and awarded damages to Plaintiff. The trial judge denied Defendant's judgment N.O.V. motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that Dr. Steen failed to provide an adequate basis for his opinion that a monitor should have been provided as he gave no testimony as to the number of hospitals having monitors and he cited no written standards or authorities stating that monitors were mandatory.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.