Nurse switched patients medication: Court says paient can sue for battery

CASE ANALYSIS ON BATTERY

Battery : Health Workers Beware

Name

School

Professor

Subject

Battery : Health Workers Beware

Martha Duncan was scheduled for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI examination on June 19 , 1998 . Before her examination , she called Scottsdale Medical Imaging (SMI ) to inform the medical staff that she needs to be sedated during the examination due to a back condition which would prohibit her from lying still during the MRI process if she is awake . In this regard , she specifically informed the nurse that she will not be

taking any drug except for demerol or morphine

Duncan also informed the nurse that she is allergic to synthetic drugs The nurse assured Duncan that they will be complying with her specifications . When Duncan arrived at the Scottsdale Memorial Hospital North for the MRI examination , the attending nurse , Gary Fink , informed her that fentanyl , a synthetic drug similar to morphine and demerol will be used for her sedation . Duncan rejected the administration of fentanyl for her sedation instead she stressed the use of either demerol or morphine . Duncan repeated her specifications thrice and told Fink to consult her physician for her medications and reschedule her MRI examination if necessary

Fink later informed Duncan that the medication has been changed to morphine . Duncan agreed to the administration of the drug , however Fink , instead of giving morphine , actually gave fentanyl . The drug caused serious complications to Duncan specifically sever headache post-traumatic stress dis , projectile vomiting , difficulty in breathing and dysfunction of the vocal cord

Due to the difficulties that she experienced , Duncan decided to three cases against SMI and Hospital Radiologists . Among the cases she d were 1 ) medical malpractice , 2 ) lack of informed consent in the administration of drug , and 3 ) battery . When the cases were set for trial , Duncan moved for the dismissal of the first two cases and retained only the battery case . SMI moved that the battery case be classified as medical malpractice . The latter crime requires the testimony of an expert witness who will be attesting or rebutting the claim that Duncan suffered difficulties due to medication given to her The trial court ruled in favor of SMI on the justification that the case Duncan d is not actually a battery case but a medical malpractice case

Duncan prayed for a special action relief in the Court of Appeals but the latter denied it . Duncan moved for the trial court to allow her to proceed with the battery claim instead of considering it as falling under the medical malpractice act which requires the testimony of an expert delving on standard of care that should be given to her . SMI on the other hand contended that the battery claim is already barred by the medical malpractice act . Since Duncan did not present any expert testimony the case should be dismissed . The trial court dismissed the battery claim against all the defendants

Duncan again appealed the case to the Court of Appeals contending that the medical malpractice act is unconstitutional . The...