Health Care Malpractice Case

Health Care Malpractice Case

The malpractice case on focus is the case of Helling v Carey. The case occurred in the State of Washington in the early 1970s. The plaintiff, Jeanette Helling, was a patient who had an eye examination conducted by Dr. Carey, her ophthalmologist. Helling was diagnosed with nearsightedness at the time and was given contact lenses. She returned to the hospital after four years due to irritation, which she believed was caused by the contact lenses (Attaluri et al., 2023). Thereafter, she returned another nine times within the next year for visual problems and irritation. When conducting these examinations, Dr. Carey did not tell her of the availability of a test that could detect glaucoma, a disorder that ultimately caused Helling to lose her eyesight. On the ninth visit, she was tested and diagnosed with glaucoma at the age of 32 years. Dr. Carey was sued by Helling, claiming that he was negligent in failing to recommend the glaucoma test, which probably led to early diagnosis and treatment (Attaluri et al., 2023).

Law, Regulation, and Ethical Policy Involved

This particular case raised questions about the standard of care that healthcare professionals are expected to provide. It is aimed at whether a physician has a mandate to inform a patient about the available diagnostic tests that could mitigate or prevent potential harm. The principles of the duty of care, informed consent, and the patient-physician relationship were the main legal arguments (Attaluri et al., 2023). Furthermore, the principle of reasonable physician standard of care versus custom-based care standard. Both experts of the plaintiff and defendant testified that it was not customary to conduct a glaucoma test for patients aged 40 years and below due to the rare disease occurrence for individuals aged 40 years and below (Attaluri et al., 2023).

The Washington Supreme Court reasoned that custom-based standards had not offered Helling adequate protection. The court reasoned that patients aged below 40 years should also be accorded the same protection by being assessed for glaucoma, even though the disease occurrence at the age of 40 was rare (Attaluri et al., 2023). The glaucoma test was quick, cheap, and effective, and even though it was not customary to give the test to those aged below 40, the court established that a reasonable doctor would administer the test to all patients. The court upheld that the doctor was liable for their negligence in failing to give the glaucoma test to the plaintiff (Attaluri et al., 2023).

Case Results

           The court ruled in favor of Jeannete Helling, affirming an important precedent. The decision underscored that physicians have a responsibility to inform their patients about available treatments and tests that could prevent harm. This expanded the concept of informed consent beyond the actual medical procedures to include information about diagnostic options that could impact the patient’s health (Attaluri et al., 2023).

Recommendations to Avoid Future to Avoid Future Issues

First, it is important for healthcare professionals to have informed consent practices. Physicians should discuss in detail the available diagnostic tests, benefits, and potential risks with the clients, ensuring informed consent is given before any medical decision. Secondly, continuous education for healthcare providers is key in ensuring healthcare professionals are updated on the ever-changing care standards and ethical obligations (Karande et al., 2021). Thirdly, physicians observe detailed and accurate record-keeping and documentation, including discussions on diagnostic options and patient refusal and consent. Lastly, health professionals should always advocate for the well-being of their patients, ensuring that important information is communicated clearly to the patient.

References

Attaluri, P. K., Wirth, P. J., Moura, S. P., Shaffrey, E. C., & Rao, V. K. (2023). The Anatomy of a Malpractice Lawsuit. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 5. https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojad008

Karande, S., Marraro, G., & Spada, C. (2021). Minimizing medical errors to improve patient safety: An essential mission ahead. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 67(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.4103/

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Content

Now that you are familiar with professional responsibility, it is important to link a healthcare malpractice case finding with the law, regulation, and/or ethical policy that the issue violates. This helps both employees and employers understand the consequences of violating these policies.

Health Care Malpractice Case

Preparation
Research and choose 1 healthcare malpractice case.

Assignment Deliverable
Write a 300- to 525-word executive summary in which you:

Summarize the health care malpractice case.
Identify the law, regulation, and/or ethical policy involved.
Describe the results of the case.
Recommend actions to avoid this issue in the future.