Tort Laws: A Two Case Study

Tort Laws: A Two Case Study

Brian Terry

University of Maryland University College

Author Note

This paper was prepared for AMBA 610, Section 9044, taught by Professor Youngblood.

This paper will be examining two cases through the use of tort laws in which the first case is frivolous and the second case is not frivolous. The first case is Judith Haimes v. Temple University Hospital in which the plaintiff alleged a CAT scan performed robbed her of her psychic powers. The second case is Cheryl Vandevender v. Sheetz Inc. in which the plaintiff alleges work place discrimination when she was unable to work due to a back injury suffered while opening a jar of pickles at work. These two cases will be discussed using a series of eight questions in a side by side comparison. Which means a question will be asked and then both cases will be discussed under that question and so on until all the questions have been answered.

What are the facts?

The facts in the first case, Judith Haimes v. Temple University Hospital, are according to the website sciencecorruption.com is that the plaintiff went to Temple University Hospital to receive a CAT scan. The plaintiff with a history of tumors was referred to a specialist whom recommended a CAT scan. While at Temple University Hospital the plaintiff told the radiologist that she has had a previous reaction to the dye use in the administration of a CAT scan. The radiologist using this information administered a small amount of the dye, two drops, to the plaintiff and then set up an "intravenous line so that counter-acting drugs could be quickly administered if a reaction occurred." After several minutes a second small amount, five to seven drops, were given to the plaintiff at which time a severe allergic reaction resulted.

The allergic reaction resulted in "difficulties breathing, tightness of the throat, pain, nausea, vomiting, hives welts, and loss of bladder control."(Sciencecorruption, 2011) Counter-acting drugs, Epinephrine and Benadryl, were administered to the plaintiff and she was observed for 15-20 minutes. The plaintiff had already scheduled another appointment with in the hospital and was allowed to leave to go to another part of the hospital. The plaintiff remained at the hospital for several hours and then allowed to go home. While at home the plaintiff suffered several of the initial symptoms for the next few days such as vomiting, headaches, and welts. The plaintiff also had hives for three weeks. However the headaches remained and that because of these headaches the plaintiff was unable to return to her line of work as a psychic.

In the second

...