The Case of Rosalina and Arturo

Every citizen has the right to quality healthcare, and the right to information about the medication plays a pivotal role in this statute. A patient should be kept abreast the kind of ailment and the procedures to be adopted (Hojjatoleslami and Zahra 465). However, not this provision is not always adhered to by most doctors and hospitals. In this case analysis, a doctor knowingly administered substandard materials onto a patient’s body causing harm and death.

This article aims to analyze an appeal case involving Rosalina representing herself and Arturo’s estate (Rosalina’s brother-deceased), HMC hospital, State of Hawaii, Hawai Medical Systems, Dr. Ricketson and Medtronic Safamor Danek USA. The appellee Medtronic Safamor sought to overturn the judgment of the circuit court arrived at on the 10th of September 2007. The appeal follows an incident where Dr. Ricketson of HMC hospital, knowingly wrongfully treated Mr. Arturo, leading to the severe ailment and ultimately passing away.

The Appeal Case

In its appeal, Medtronic argued that the circuit court made errors in awarding less in damages than what had been proposed by the jury, failing to hold HMC hospital jointly liable for the emotional distress suffered by Rosalina and wrongly taking that Medtronic’s act of good faith as changes in product liability. HMC, on the other hand, argued that the circuit court did not comply with the amended Revised Statutes of Hawaii to remove them from being held jointly liable for acts of tort. Also, they purported that the circuit court failed to exonerate them following the actions of admission of guilt by Medtronic when they agreed for a good faith settlement.

Conclusion

Both the hospital and Dr. Ricketson exhibited some malpractices. For instance, the doctor did not disclose to the hospital his unethical professional background-he had lied to the licensing board-falsification of medical records (Leach). The hospital on the other hand after being informed of what had transpired attempted to cover up the story. A thorough analysis of this case reveals that the clinic was not adequately held accountable for the punitive damages suffered by Arturo. This case is a wake-up call to every health care provider no matter the location to always maintain patient safety by proper screening of medical staff and ensure that medical supplies are still available (Atun et al., 1230)

Works Cited

Atun, Rifat, et al. “Health-system reform and universal health coverage in Latin America.” The Lancet 385.9974 (2015): 1230-1247.

Hojjatoleslami, Simin, and Zahra Ghodsi. ”Respect the rights of patient in terms of hospitalized clients: a cross-sectional survey in Iran, 2010.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 31 (2012): 464-467.

Leach, James D. ”Medical Privacy: The South Dakota Supreme Court Adopts SDCL 19-2-13.” SDL Rev. 57 (2012): 1.