國立高雄第一科技大學 科技法律研究所 案例討論 課程：醫療與法律. 指導教授：周天 所長 報 告 人：碩專班二年級 9520710 劉文治. 案號： Campbell v. Arnold Delbridge Iowa 2003 670.N.W.2d 108. There are disputed issues of fact that preclude entry of summary judgment 2. Reverse and remand for trial. Supreme Court
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
報 告 人：碩專班二年級
案號：Campbell v. Arnold Delbridge Iowa 2003 670.N.W.2d 108
1. Lacked the necessary expert
witness to establish
Liability or damages
Covenant Medical Center
1.The nurse anethetist who took Campbell to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU)stated in an affidavit that at the request of Dr. Delbridge, she told the PACU nurses that Campbell was a Jehovah’s Witness and was not to be reinfused.
2.The nurse who started the reinfusion admitted in her deposition that she did not look at Campbell’s chart for an order to start the reinfusion as usually required.
3.She based her decision to reinfusion on the fact that the Gish with its blood reservoir suggested that reinfusion to be done
Oswald we ruled that expert testimony was not required as to all of the element of a medical malpractice case (Oswald 453N.W.2d at 636-37)
1.Evidence concerning the lack of communication between the doctor and the hospital nurses, the possible mixed-up inpatient charts and the doctor’s admission(承認)of error were capable of being resolved by a fact finder without the testimony of experts.
2.Expert testimony was not necessary to sustain patient’s claim of emotional distress.
3. Proof of an accompanying physical injury was not required to recover for emotional distress claim
4.Reversed and remanded