California State University, Long Beach

HCA 340

Legal Aspects of Healthcare Delivery

Course 12345-01
Professor Dana Brown

Patient Rights Violation

Simran Kooner
015197219
October 23, 2017

Word Count 2047

Patient Rights Violation 2

Abstract

Whether you are at a hospital, clinic, or private practice, patient rights being violated can be

more common than expected. The purpose of this paper is to provide an understanding of court

cases in which patient rights were violated and how it can affect an individual and their family

greatly. This report proves the case, issues, decision and reasoning of each case where the

hospital and certain members of staff are being accused for violating the rights and decisions of a

patient. For instance, in the court case William Weisman v. Maryland General Hospital (No. 24-

C-16-004199 July 25, 2016) and Sandra Sunderland, Bodil Tvede, James Liese, Susan Liese,

Carolann Donofrio, John Donofrio, Jacqueline Gluckman, Barbara Drumm, John Viraduala, and

The Florida Association of the Deaf v. Bethesda Hospital (Nos. 16-10980, 16-13327 April 27,

2017), we noticed that when rights are violated, plaintiffs have the ability to pursue justice

through the legal system. Even though very few rights are clearly spelled out, they are well

known to the hospital and its staff. Therefore, in order to avoid being sued, the hospital needs to

make sure they comply with standards such as making sure that patients are treated with respect.

Key words: patients care, patient assistance, standard of care, patient rights, informed consent,

and health protection

Patient Rights Violation 3

William Weisman, Plaintiff Pro Se, v. Maryland General

Hospital, Inc.,et al., Defendant.
CIV. No. 24-C-16-004199
July 25, 2016.
Circuit Court of Maryland, Baltimore City
Trial Date/Argued November 2017 - Soon to be determined

With this court case, the plaintiff who is William Weisman, was trying fight for a

heartbreaking incident that happened to his wife Beatrice Weisman on Aug. 29, 2013. Beatrice

Weisman suffered greatly from a situation that was not supposed to happen. Beatrice Weisman

endured a serious stroke and ended up being in the hospital for two weeks (Thaddeus, 2016).

Beatrice and her husband had then drafted an advanced directive making him in charge of her

medical decisions if she became unable to. With the support from her four children and husband,

she decided to authorize Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form. This

treatment form states that if her heart or lungs began to fail, she should be allowed to die. Her

condition worsened rapidly over time and she ended up in cardiac arrest and the medical staff,

mainly physicians at Maryland General Hospital ended up resuscitating her and keeping her

alive. Performing CPR on Beatrice Weisman led to her having broken ribs and collapsed lungs

(Thaddeus, 2016). Even though they succeeded in reviving her by defibrillating her with electric

shocks and injecting epinephrine, the entire family was left in distraught (Thaddeus, 2016). The

hospital ended up violating her and her family wishes; thus, Mr. Weisman, Beatrices husband,

has brought suit against Maryland General Hospital for its treatment of his wife.

When a hospital fails to save a patients life, they face a threat of lawsuits. Now, some

face legal action for failing to let a patient die. Similar lawsuits like Beatrice Weisman are

constantly occurring, were healthcare providers have neglected advance directives. It is

extremely hard to reverse death, which in many cases, leads to misfortune in terms of pain and
Patient Rights Violation 4

discomfort. Just recently, courts have begun to accept that unwanted life is also a harm.

Attorneys are now taking these cases from plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, William Weisman, is claiming as the cause of action as resuscitating his

wife, Beatrice Weisman, and keeping her alive. Additionally, the plaintiff is suing under breach

of contract, negligence, malpractice, respondent superior, lack of consent, and the intentional

infliction of emotional distress (assault).

In addition, the rule of law that pertains to this case is contract, respondent superior,

negligence, duty, breach, causation, and damage. Contract can be defined as an agreement

between two parties, either written or oral that is legally binding. Because contracts are

enforceable, parties who enter into contracts can rely on contracts in structuring their business

relationships. Respondent superior is when an employer has a vicarious liability for any acts

torturous of their employee with-in the scope of their employment. Negligence is an act by a

medical profession that deviates from the accepted medical standard of care. Duty, breach,

causation, and damage all fall within negligence. Duty of care is when you must anticipate risks

for your clients and take care to prevent them coming to harm. Breach is when conduct falls

below a reasonable, wise person. Causation is where you must find that the breach of duty was

the actual or proximate cause of the resulting injury. And finally, for damages you must have an

actual loss or damage.

Expressed contract pertains to this case because it was written that her husband decided

to authorize Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form. The hospital is liable

because they were in charge of knowing that they should not have resuscitated her. Additionally,

the medical staff is obligated and responsible in making sure each other know that she was under

this authorization by putting it in the documents/charts. The mistake was made because of the
Patient Rights Violation 5

hospital resuscitating her and keeping her alive. Breach of good faith affects this case because

Beatrice and her family thought that the hospital would have known that they were suppose too

fulfill the authorization. Preexisting duty deals with this case because they were obligated to not

resuscitate her, so they should not have resuscitated. With respondent superior, the employer has

the liability of the employees performing the torturous act of resuscitating Beatrice. In regards to

causation, when the hospital brought her back to life, they made her in a worse condition than

she was before. Thus, compensatory damages shall be sought-after from the plaintiff.

Beatrices husband, William Weisman, died about a year after his wifes discharge

(Thaddeus, 2016). Now, their son, Christian, is filing the lawsuit. Beatrice Weismans case seeks

$250,000 in hospital charges and roughly $180,000 annual cost for Beatrices care from her

resuscitation to her eventual death (Thaddeus, 2016). The suit also demands that the hospital

enhances their procedures and training for do not resuscitate orders (Thaddeus, 2016). It is well

known that Beatrice was not intentionally resuscitated by the staff members. Moreover,

Marylands highest court believes that being given another chance at life is not an injury

(Thaddeus, 2016).

Over time, Beatrice Weisman has made a miraculous recovery. This is all thanks to a

great amount of physical therapy and round-the-clock home care. Beatrice Weisman now lives at

home with revolving shifts of caregivers, eats meals, and has some form of dementia. Her

children are happy to see their mother each day; however, they also see her suffering on a daily

basis. Beatrice Weisman continuously asks her children why shes still here which is a difficult

question for her children to answer (Thaddeus, 2016).

Patient Rights Violation 6

The Court has not yet come to a conclusion applying the rule to the issues the plaintiff is

claiming. However, I believe their conclusion about the hospital resuscitating the woman was

incorrect in terms of applying the rule to the issues the plaintiff is claiming.

Additionally, the final decision of the Court is soon to be determined in Maryland. The

Weisman case has a trial date in November. The remedy, in addition, has still not been

determined.

Sandra Sunderland, Bodil Tvede, James Liese, Susan Liese, Carolann Donofrio, John Donofrio,
Jacqueline Gluckman, Barbara Drumm, John Viraduala, The Florida Association of the Deaf,
Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bethesda Hospital, INC., d.b.a. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, d.b.a.
Bethesda Hospital West, Bethesda Health, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 16-10980, 16-13327
Argued April 27, 2017

In this court case, the plaintiffs who are Sandra Sunderland, Bodil Tvede, James Liese,

Susan Liese, Carolann Donofrio, John Donofrio, Jacqueline Gluckman, Barbara Drumm, John

Viraduala, and The Florida Association of the Deaf had entered into a hospital where they felt

that the hospital failed to accommodate their disability (deafness) and access to hospital services.

Bethesda Memorial Hospital specifically did not take steps to assure patients that they

understood what was happening to them when they got medical treatment (Reuters, 2017). Thus,

the multiple plaintiffs were seeking compensatory damage to make up for the loss against the

hospital. The plaintiffs also filed their complaint to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the

Rehabilitation Act on June 10, 2015 (Reuters, 2017).

In this lawsuit, patients described how frightened and confused they were when the

medical staff, specifically doctors and nurses, used gestures or passed notes to them to explain

medical procedures (Reuters, 2017). The medical staff then decided to use a service where

interpreters at remote locations are shown onto a TV screen. The patients, however, were not
Patient Rights Violation 7

able to understand much due to the screen often being blurry or blank. The medical professionals

at many times did not even know how to use it (Reuters, 2017).

The plaintiffs are claiming the cause of action as failing to provide sufficient care for

deaf patients. Additionally, the plaintiffs are suing under negligence which is the rule of law that

pertains to this case. Negligence can be used to describe the conduct of the defendant.

Specifically, negligence means an act or omission to act that breaches a duty of care and is the

actual and proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries. Negligence is something that is always

foreseeable, and in this case, the deaf patients should have been given an interpreter. All four

elements must be present which are duty of care, breach, causation, and damages as stated in the

last case above.

For duty of care and breach specifically, the standard of care was unacceptable towards

the patients. With causation and damage, due to the hospital not being able to work in an

effective manner towards the patients, compensatory damage I believe should be given for pain

and suffering.

The hospital neglected the rights of deaf patients in the following acts: Rehabilitation Act

and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Reuters, 2017). For example, negligence in the

form as nonfeasance, which the patients believed to be as the issue pertaining to this case, which

is the failure to act when there is a duty.

The Court came to their conclusion applying the rule to issues that the hospital nurses

were preluded by summary judgement. Additionally, it precluded summary judgment about

nurses intentionally being indifferent to the disabled patients with hearing loss (Reuters, 2017).

Patients needs for communication regarding nurses were not deliberately indifferent (Reuters,
Patient Rights Violation 8

2017). Patients had the right to seek the courts injunctive relief. Injunctive relief to assert claims

against hospital lacks standing by patients (Reuters, 2017).

The outcome of the Court regarding this case was that the patients did not win the case

due to no negligence on the part of the staff or hospital. In conclusion, the U.S. district judge

threw out the lawsuit. This was due to the patients not making their needs clear. Since the

patients did not tell the nurses clearly that they needed an interpreter, the hospital cannot be sued

for not providing one (Reuters, 2017). Basically, since the patients did not complain, and instead

just brought the case straight to court without really doing anything about it, the claims of the

patients were rejected. In similar cases, the damages that patients can sometimes receive is

usually not that significant. The deaf patients would have only received about $75,000 if they

won the case. Thus, the nine deaf patients were left with no remedy in this case due to not letting

the hospital aware of their concerns.

Patient Rights Violation 9

References

Thaddeus, P. (2016). Christian J. WEISMAN, in his capacity as Power of Attorney for, and on

behalf of, Beatrice J. Weisman, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC.,

Health Care Provider/Defendant.Christian J. WEISMAN, in his capacity as Power of

Attorney for, and on behalf of, Beatrice J. Weisman, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND GENERAL

HOSPITAL, INC., Health Care Provider/Defendant., 1-14. Retrieved October 1, 2017,

from http://www.thaddeuspope.com/images/WEISMAN_v_Univ_Maryland_

July_2016_resucitate_contra_POLST_.pdf

Reuters, T. (2017). Sandra Sunderland, Bodil Tvede, James Liese, Susan Liese, Carolann

Donofrio, John Donofrio, Jacqueline Gluckman, Barbara Drumm, John Viraduala, The

Florida Association of the Deaf, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bethesda Hospital, INC.,

d.b.a. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, d.b.a. Bethesda Hospital West, Bethesda

Health,Inc.,Defendants-Appellees., 1-20. Retrieved October 1, 2017.