Case Summary
The selected case depicts the malpractice in particular healthcare facilities in terms of addressing the patient’s concerns and conducting the appropriate investigation of their health state. The appellant is Alla Popovich, whose husband, Aleksandr Popovich, experienced an inappropriate health assessment in the medical facility called Allina Health System. Particularly, the appellant states that her husband suffered a stroke after obtaining negligent medical services in the emergency rooms of this system.
Stakeholders
The stakeholders involved in the case are medical workers who work as radiologists and provide Aleksandr with two tests of his brain. Particularly, the first scanning occurred when the husband arrived in the emergency room for the first time. Then, after the worsening of his health state, he decided to return and received the second scanning.
Time Frames
The time frames of the case assume the one-day happening. Particularly, the patient arrived at the hospital in the early morning on February 9, 2016. While receiving the first scanning procedure, he spent approximately 2 hours in Unity Hospital’s emergency department. Then, Popovich returned to his home while still having severe issues and health concerns. As the worsening of his state, the trouble with breathing and unresponsiveness occurred later this day. Therefore, he was delivered to the emergency room at Mercy Hospital at 11:16 a.m. After that, the patient arrived at Abbott Healthcare Facility at 5:37 p.m., where he obtained a final diagnosis and experienced a stroke.
Problem and Outcomes
As the case problem that Anna Popovich uses as the reason for the justification of the appeal, one can highlight the negligent care from the radiologists that worsened the situation and was the cause of her husband’s stroke. Particularly, as the case outcomes, Mr. Popovich experienced serious and irreversible brain damage due to the stroke. According to Popovich v. Allina Health System (2020), the doctors diagnosed him with “dissection of the left proximal vertebral artery with thrombus” (p. 3). Consequently, Popovich lost control over his balance, cannot walk without help, and has significant cognitive and speech impairments.
Medical Malpractice Component
Key Legal Components of the Case
As the key legal component of the case, one should mention the peculiarity of the implementation and hiring of independent stakeholders in the healthcare facility. Due to the fact that radiologists who provided the patient with the tests were stakeholders, the legal point of the case in terms of their guilt or innocence should be considered profoundly. According to Fishman (2020), “independent contractors maintain personal control over the way they do the work contracted for, including the details of when, where, and how the work is done” (p. 20). Therefore, the issue’s nature assumes the identification of specific laws that will state the peculiarities of the independent stakeholders’ legal responsibility for providing the patient with inappropriate healthcare services.
Relevant Malpractice Policies and the Standard of Care Provided to the Victim
As the primary malpractice policy that addresses the studied case, one should mention licensing requirements from the stakeholders. When exploring the care provided to the victim and law statements, one should stress that The Secretary’s Advisory Committee underlines the necessity of licensing stakeholders to avoid further legal issues (Elsevier Inc., 2018). Attention should be paid to their alignment with all medical standards constructed by the federal government, such as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Impact on Healthcare Consumers from Different Cultural Backgrounds
This malpractice situation would influence healthcare consumers with different cultural backgrounds by providing them with non-qualitative diagnostics and healthcare services. It will result in the worsening of the situation and will have severe adverse outcomes. The case will not similarly impact other cultures person due to the less attention from the healthcare provider (Oni, 2018). Consequently, this case can change the view of these patients in the way of increasing their mistrust of this facility.
Assessment of Accountability
Healthcare providers are held accountable to a considerably low extent. Notably, the decision to conduct a brain scanning was made twice.
References
Elsevier Inc. (2018). Legal and ethical issues for health professions e-book. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Fishman, S. (2020). Consultant & independent contractor agreements. NOLO.
Oni, O. (2018). Who should run the health service? Realignment and reconstruction. CRC Press.
Popovich v. Allina Health System. Justia, pp. 1-22, (Supreme Court 2020). Web.