The Case of Kadlec Medical Center (Essay Sample)

ESSENTIAL RESOURCES TO CONDUCT RESEARCH
1.The Louisiana Civil Code.
2. The Restatement [second] of Torts.
3. Precedents/Decided cases.
4. Common law practice.
5. Scholarly writings on the case and Topic.
6. The opinion of the court and arguments presented during trial of the matter.
FACTS OF THE CASE
This lawsuit arises rom statement or omission made or omitted by defendants LRMC, Louisiana Anesthesia Associates, L.L.C and Doctors Dennis,Preau,parr and Baldone,in professional reference letters or credentialing letters written on behalf of Dr. Robert Lee Berry .Dr. Berry practiced anesthesiology at LRMC in Cavington,Louisiana from January 1997 to March 2001.
During that time Dr. Berry was an employee o Lakeview Anesthesia Associates [LLC-'LAA" with defendants Drs. Dennis ,Prean,Baldone and Parr.Kadlec alleges at some point during the year 2001,LRMC conducted an audit of Dr. Berry employment was terminated hence his staff privileges expired.
Following his termination from LAA,Dr. Berry sought employment through staff care Inc . a temporary employment agency for medical professionals staff care ultimately placed Dr. Berry at Kadlec medical Center in Richland Washington. Before Dr. Berry started practicing medicine in Washington, Kadlec sent a letter to LRMC requesting, among other things;
1. "evidence of current" competence to perform the privileges requested and
2. "a candid evaluation of Dr. Berry training, continuing clinic performance, skill and judgement, interpersonal skills and ability to perform the privileges requested.
Kadlec include an "appointment reference questionnaire" with the request for information. The questionnaire provided a fill-in-the-blank form which asked specific questions that the medical center wanted answered.
On October 26,2001in response to Kadlec's inquiry LRMC sent Kadlec a brief letter which stated that Dr. Berry was on the active medical staff in the field of anesthesiology at LRMC from March 4,1997 to September ,2001.The letter represented that such limited information was provided "due to the large volume of inquiries received in the office.LRMC admits that it did not answer any of the questions on the enclosed questionnaire ,but says this type of response was part of its standard business practice in responding to such inquiries.
Based in part on the information contained in the letter from LRMC and two other letters of recommendation written by Drs. Dennis and Prean, Kadlec retained Dr. Berry's services through staff care in late 2001.About a year later, Dr. Berry was the anesthesiologist for a tubal litigation surgery performed at Kadlec. The patient, MS Jones suffered extensive brain damage and has remained in a non-responsive state since the surgery allegedly due to Dr. Berry's gross negligence and the fact that he was impaired by drugs during surgery.
The family of the injured patient sued Dr. Berry and Kadlec for medical malpractice which they were compensated.
Kadlec claims that during discovery in that case, it learned that LAA had terminated Dr. Berry "with cause" in 2001.Kadlec ultimately settled the medical malpractice lawsuit for $7.5 Million. After the settlememnt, Kadlec filed this s law suit against LRMC, LAA and Drs. Dennis, Preau, Parr and Baldane but they eventually lost.
ANALYSIS
The case herein depicts the actual tort law in practice. Tort law is both anchored in the Common law practice and the statute laws of various jurisdictions.
To my opinion the court was well guided in reaching in a such a fair and reasoned verdict because of the grounded arguments, both in the Ratio decidenti and Obiter dicta.
The reason why I am of the agreement with the court decision is solely premised on the principles of Torts which establishes three key elements, which are;
1.Duty of care
2. Breach of duty of care
3. Damages
If the Plaintiff can establish that there exists a duty of a care and that the same was breached then the plaintiff will be entitled to damages as pleaded. In the case in point Kadlec failed to prove their case to the standard required.
Article 2324, defines the acts amounting to tort and the penalty imposed upon the tortfeasor. This definition outlines the strict rules that Kadlec never fulfilled thus they were denied the damages as pleaded in their case.[INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 2324 OF THE LOUSIANA CIVIL CODE]
Still under the Louisiana law, in order to prevail in a claim for negligent, misrepresentation, a plaintiff must establish the following elements which Plaintiff never proved to the required standard;
1.The Defendant in the course of its business or other matters in which it had a pecuniary interest, supplied false information.
2. The Defendant had a legal duty to supply correct information to the Plaintiff.
3. The Defendant breached its duty which can be breached by omission as well as by affirmative misrepresentation.
4. The plaintiff suffered damages or pecuniary loss as a result of its justifiable reliance upon the omission or affirmative representation.
The information that was given was based on the questionnaire which outlined the allegations that were later raised. Subsequently, the arguments thereafter were a hopeless reaction as a defensive mechanism and out of frustrations as a result of the plaintiff’s own faults.
Article 2315 expounds and invites the plaintiff to the strict proof to his own case which later failed to do so thus dismissal of their case on that ground of failing to discharge the burden of proof.[Ibid]
Section 552[1] was quoted out of context