case of malpractice
Chapter 38
Question 4:
In 2009, Mark McEwen, a personality from the Early Show on CBS, brought a lawsuit against the Baltimore Washington Medical Center. McEwen went to the emergency room at the hospital with symptoms of a stroke, and a doctor told him he had the stomach flu and sent him away. On the plane heading home, McEwen filed a claim against the medical center, stating that his stroke could’ve been avoided if the doctor had prescribed aspirin and anticoagulants. How do you think the court decided the case? Do you think the court should hold the doctor responsible, or should the medical center be held accountable for the doctor’s actions? [McEwen et al v. Baltimore Washington Medical Center, Inc. et al (2009)].
Question 7:
Citicorp, the owner of both Diners Club and Carte Blanche, merged the two credit card firms into one firm, giving Diners Club the dominant voice. Diners Club then ceased Carte Blanche’s long-standing assistance to Carte Blanche Singapore (CBS). CBS sued Diners Club, claiming that it owed CBS a duty to continue providing services. CBS argued that because Carte Blanche and Diners Club were essentially the same firm, the court should pierce the corporate veil and hold Diners Club responsible for Carte Blanche’s failure to provide services to CBS. How do you think the court ruled in this case? Why? [Carte Blanche (Singapore) v. Diners Club International, 2 F.3d 24 (1993).]
150 words each, one page..
Introduction to IRAC
All homework case problems and essay answers on the examinations must be answered in IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) format. This is a specialized format that is used in the law to help us analyze legal questions and develop our critical legal thinking skills. It helps teach us how to look at a set of facts, determine the rule of law that applies, apply the law to that set of facts, and then develop a legally defensible conclusion.
Example:
Beulah walked up quietly behind Verna and hit her in the head with a textbook causing serious injury to Verna.
Verna will end up suing Beulah. The ISSUE is the fundamental/basic question that Verna will be asking the court to answer. It should be specific as to the cause of action upon which Verna is suing–in essence:
Issue: Whether Beulah is liable to Verna for battery.
The next step is the RULE. This is the rule of law that applies to the case. How can you tell whether Beulah is liable unless you know what the definition of battery is? The rule is the definition of the cause of action.
Rule: Battery-an unauthorized and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person.
The next step is the toughest–the APPLICATION. Students normally struggle with this section initially but eventually get the hang of it. It takes lots of practice by spending time on your homework answers and reviewing the model answers–practice, practice, practice. The application is where you take the elements of the rule (definition of the cause of action) and match it with the facts of the case. The best way to determine the elements is to look at the adjectives used in the definition. For example, the first thing that’s required for a battery is an unauthorized contact. The next thing that’s required is that the contact be harmful or offensive. The next requirement is that there be a physical contact. The last requirement is that the contact be with another person.
What facts indicate to you that this contact was unauthorized? The fact that Beulah walked up quietly behind Verna. What fact indicates that the contact was harmful (let’s go with harmful as opposed to offensive in this case)? The fact that Verna suffered serious injuries. What fact indicates that there was a physical contact? The fact that Beulah hit Verna. What fact indicates that Verna is a person? Well, the facts aren’t specific, but it’s a reasonable presumption.
Application: This contact was unauthorized because the facts state that Beulah walked up quietly behind Verna indicating that she did not want to be discovered. The contact was harmful because the facts state that Verna suffered serious injuries. The facts also state that Verna was hit by Beulah which means that there was physical contact. Finally, while the facts don’t state specifically that Verna is a person, it is a reasonable assumption given the circumstances.
The next section is the CONCLUSION which is the answer to the question asked in the issue–yes or no.
Conclusion: Yes. (It’s also okay to write a one sentence affirmation of your conclusion like “Yes, based on the facts presented, Beulah is liable for battery” if you choose to do so)
In IRAC you are not advocating one side or the other–you are to look at each scenario like a judge and analyze the facts leading you to develop a “ruling” so to speak.
Do not provide “cut and paste” analyses. These are analyses where the student simply gives back the facts given without any analysis. For example:
Issue: Whether Beulah is liable to Verna for battery.
Rule: Battery-an unauthorized and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person.
Application: Beulah walked up quietly behind Verna and hit her in the head with a textbook causing serious injury to Verna.
Conclusion: Yes.
This is not a good IRAC–and will result in very few points. It does not explain how you came to your conclusion. Basically, the student is taking the facts given and saying to the professor–“Here are the facts you gave me. I’m giving them back. I don’t know how to figure out this problem–you do it.” Don’t make your mother cry by getting a low score on your IRAC. Give me a good IRAC using proper form and analysis and get points for your efforts on an exam.
Also, if you are struggling to make the facts fit the rule, step by and ask yourself whether or not you are using the correct rule.
………………………Answer preview………………………
Issue: Whether the conclusion of the doctors about Mark McEwen illness was based on a well-developed and dependable principles and methodologies or it was a case of malpractice.
Rule: Dauber and federal rule evidence 702, is a law used by the court to make a general assessment on whether a medical expert scientific testimony in this case………………………
APA
341 words
