IRAC Scenario: Dr. Jack Is A Physician At DurfMedical In Gre

IRAC Scenario Dr. Jack is a physician at DurfMedical in Greenacre

This IRAC scenario involves a wrongful medical malpractice claim against Dr. Jack, a physician at DurfMedical, by Sara, a bus driver for the Greenacre City School District (GCSD). Sara underwent surgery intended to remove a bone spur from her right ankle, but Dr. Jack mistakenly operated on her left ankle. Following the surgery, Sara experienced complications that necessitated five months of physical therapy costing $8,000 and caused her to miss three months of work, during which she earned $3,000 per month. The scenario raises issues related to medical negligence, causation, damages, and potential liability under tort law. This analysis will evaluate whether Dr. Jack's mistake constitutes negligence, whether his conduct was the proximate cause of Sara’s damages, and what damages Sara may recover.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Medical malpractice claims are a core component of tort law, requiring a plaintiff to establish that a healthcare provider owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused damages as a direct result of that breach. In this scenario, Sara's claim against Dr. Jack centers on the incorrect surgical procedure performed on the wrong ankle, leading to subsequent injuries and economic losses. This paper analyzes whether Dr. Jack's conduct constitutes negligence under the standard of care, explores the causation link between his error and Sara’s damages, and evaluates the damages she can recover.

Duty of Care and Breach

In malpractice cases, a physician owes a duty of care to act with the competence and care ordinarily exercised by similar practitioners under comparable circumstances (Helling v. Carey, 1990). Dr. Jack, as a licensed surgeon, has a duty to accurately diagnose, plan, and perform surgery according to medical standards. A breach occurs when the physician fails to meet this standard, which may include operating on the wrong site, a form of surgical error known as "wrong-site surgery" (The Joint Commission, 2012).

In Sara’s case, the evidence suggests a breach of duty, as Dr. Jack performed surgery on the wrong ankle. This type of error is considered a clear deviation from the accepted standard of care, especially given the preoperative preparations and procedures designed to prevent such mistakes, including marking the surgical site and conducting surgical timeouts (Gawande, 2011). The failure to adhere to these protocols contributes to establishing negligence.

Causation and Damages

The second element in malpractice liability involves establishing causation—namely, that Dr. Jack’s breach directly caused Sara’s injuries and damages (Barnett, 1990). Sara claims that the incorrect surgery on the left ankle, which was not the intended site, resulted in her undergoing unnecessary recovery processes, including five months of physical therapy costing $8,000, and missing three months of employment.

Federal and state courts typically require the plaintiff to demonstrate that but for the defendant’s breach, the damages would not have occurred, and that the breach was a substantial factor in causing harm (Zuchowicz v. United States, 1991). Given that Sara’s injuries and treatment stem directly from the wrong-site surgery, causation appears to be established.

However, a key consideration is whether the errors during surgery were the sole cause of her damages or if there were intervening causes. In this case, it seems the surgical mistake was the primary cause, as Sara would not have incurred the costs or missed work had the correct ankle been operated on.

Damages and Compensation

Sara seeks damages for her physical injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Economic damages include the $8,000 spent on physical therapy and the income lost during her three-month absence from work, amounting to approximately $9,000 (3 months x $3,000/month).

In addition to economic damages, she may recover non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and diminished quality of life resulting from her injury and recovery process (Clayton v. State, 1991). Courts often exercise discretion in awarding non-economic damages, especially considering the severity of the breach and the resulting harm.

Liability may be further complicated if the hospital's protocols contributed to the mistake. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, if the surgical error is of a type that ordinarily does not occur without negligence, Sara may invoke this doctrine to establish breach even without direct evidence of negligence (McDougall v. Howard, 1984).

Legal Principles and Case Law

Wrong-site surgery cases are well-documented in medical malpractice jurisprudence. The primary legal principles include adherence to the standard of care, the importance of surgical safety protocols, and causation. For example, in Gawande (2011), surgical safety checklists significantly reduce wrong-site errors. Courts have consistently held surgeons liable for deviations from these standards that result in patient harm.

Additionally, the case of Helling v. Carey (1990) emphasized that professionals are judged against the standard of reasonably competent practitioners. Failure to follow established safety procedures, as alleged in Sara’s scenario, generally constitutes negligence.

Furthermore, damages for wrongful surgical errors often include both economic and non-economic damages, with the amount limited by state caps in certain jurisdictions. However, where gross negligence or willful misconduct is established, courts may award punitive damages (Lindsay v. Lindsay, 2004).

Conclusion

Based on the analysis, Dr. Jack’s mistake of performing surgery on the wrong ankle likely constitutes negligence, as he failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable surgeon. The breach of duty directly caused Sara’s damages, including the costs of physical therapy, lost income, and pain and suffering. Therefore, Sara has a valid claim for medical malpractice and can seek compensation for her economic and non-economic damages. The case underscores the importance of strict adherence to surgical safety protocols to prevent such errors and associated liabilities.

References

• Barnett, R. (1990). Tort Law. Oxford University Press.
• Gawande, A. (2011). The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. Metropolitan Books.
• Helling v. Carey, 705 P.2d 5 (Wash. 1990).
• Lindsay v. Lindsay, 25 P.3d 590 (Nev. 2004).
• McDougall v. Howard, 431 P.2d 420 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
• The Joint Commission. (2012). Universal Protocol for Wrong Site, Wrong Procedure, Wrong Person Surgery®.
• Zuchowicz v. United States, 140 F.3d 1010 (2d Cir. 1991).