Essay #1 Question Prompt (400 words or fewer)

Wyman v. Eck Case Docket No. 43730

In 2017, a bench of judges sitting in Idaho Supreme Court upheld and affirmed the decisions from Ada County district court on the grant of a summary judgment awarded to John Eck and others. In the trial court, John and Wyman sued the Respondents on the grounds of wrong medical misconduct and malpractice including failure to accurately diagnose the patient’s cancer conditions. The defendant claimed that they were barred by law provided under section 5to 219 (4) of the Idaho court and the statute of limitations and thus the claims could not succeed in favor of the Wyman.

The argument was that the failure was occasioned on the grounds that the patient’s condition was not ascertainable until several biopsies performed, the rationale was that there was further un-contradicted expert evidence indicating that the patient’s cancer would have been easily diagnosed befortoe conducting any biopsy process. The court reliance on the undisputed facts stated that Wyman had claimed untimely and thus could not be granted due to limitations.

Notably, limitation of actions is purposively legislated to aid individuals to bring their matters or vindicate themselves and their rights promptly; it bars any further claims that have exceeded the time limit. In such a suit, there are two years, and the statute of limitation run until the damage is done. In this case, the claimant was indolent, caught up with time; thus the claim rightly denied by the courts. Equally, the law does not work retrospectively especially on matters concerning negligence. In this regard, both trial and the Idaho supreme court was justified to grant the judgment to the respondents.

The court also significantly relied on the case of Conner v. Hodges and Stuard v. Jorgenson because of the set precedent and principles that in deciding cases, it should not lead to absurdity and ensure flexibility. The issue on when cancer became objectively ascertainable was not relevant in the case because of the limitations and thus prompted the court to rule in favor of respondents.

Lastly, limitations of statutes provides that in  such a case, a party has to sue with two years after damage was done, the appropriate date would have been within the two years, if matter were file in December 2013, it would have been with time limit but by the beginning of 2014, time would have already lapsed.

Essay #2 Question Prompt (300 words or fewer)

Generally, there are several means in which a party may prove his case in the courts of law on medical malpractice or negligence. Some of this evidence will determine that a doctor failed to uphold the duties of care and that the patient suffered. As a result, one will need to show the medical records; this is the most crucial to indicate that indeed there was malpractice on the part of the doctor. Secondly one may prove by providing g any documentation or by ascertaining that there was a patient-doctor relationship that exits and that in the process the patient had received many diagnoses from the same doctor. Lastly, one would need expert testimony to prove that there was negligence; this should be from a professional who will appear as an expert witness to give out a professional opinion on the case. Idaho law provides that suits have to be filed within two years, section 6-1012 of state law indicate that there must be proof of standard of care that was breached.

On the other hand, the under Idaho law, there exist both the economic and non-economic damages or otherwise referred to as general damages. Economic damages are awarded in monetary terms to reimburse the monetary loss such as medical expenses, wages loss, therapy costs among others. Noneconomic damages are awarded to compensate on things one cannot quantify such as pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium among others. Before a party is awarded either of these damages, the strict proof is needed, under the non-economic damages, one may be tasked to bring in an expert witness to prove that indeed he will, or he has suffered the loss claimed. The rationale here is primarily to root out frivolous, vexatious and unreasonable claims from patients alleging to have suffered unseen losses and benefit illegally.

Essay #3 Question Prompt (400 words or fewer)

In this application, one Mrs. Jones who was the defendant belonging to Jehovah Witness church was brought to the hospital, the church-sect prohibited acts such as blood transfusion, it was rightly evident that while observing the patient, she had significantly lost a lot of blood she had raptured her ulcers. The hospital thus immediately made an application to the nearby district court to have the permission perform further treatment and conduct a blood transfusion but was declined

The legal issues arising were that was grounded on whether the court had the right to allow the hospital to conduct blood transfusion to such a patient. The court ruled that it had the very powers to conduct and legal issues orders to the hospital to perform blood transfusion even if the religion of the patient prohibited. However both Mr. and Mrs. Jones were adamant, but the court went ahead and issued the writ and a go-ahead for the hospital indicating that life hanged on a balance and thus could not let someone die on such grounds.

In reaching this ruling, the court had several explanations to give, Mrs. Jones was a mother who had an infant baby that depended on her for survival, further the court stated that despite the freedom of practicing whatever one wants to practice does not imply or extend to the notion that the child or an infant should be exposed to communicable disease or even death on the ground that religion forbids. Similarly, the court was also of the view that Mrs. Jones was not in a position to make a sound decision or choice, doctors were thus protected from liability and could not let the patient, nor the infant life was literary at stake.

Summarily, Utilitarianism fundamentally indicates that the most ethical or right choice to take is that choice that will produce more good in great number than harm. On the other hand deontological perspective is a normative theory which posit that the morality of an act is based on of the action is right or wrong when under provided rules or laws, it is not concerned with the consequences that particular action, generally this ruling closely reflects the utilitarian viewpoint.

References

Application of the President and Directors of Georgetown College, Inc. (1964) case Retrieved from https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/health-law/health-law-keyed-to-furrow/life-and-death-decisions/application-of-the-president-and-directors-of-georgetown-college/2/

Wyman v. Eck Case Docket No. 43730 Retrieved from  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/id-supreme-court/1850964.html