Child-Parent Consent Case: Courtnie Williamson's Case

Impact on internal and external stakeholders When it comes to the impact of this negligent event, it is needless to say that the child, Courtnie Williamson, suffered the worse consequences of all, she will be affected physically, emotionally, and intellectually for the rest of her life; with therapy and willpower she might be able to recover to a certain extent, but there is no certainty on the success of any treatment. This negligent act limited the future of this child and the way that she might be productive and contribute to society; just as important are the enormous consequences for the parents. As much as the courts insist that the parent-child relationship does not have the same dependency as the child-parent bond, there is going
to be an enormous toll on the way the family will be able to live their everyday life, spending most of their time doing simple tasks for the child and curtailing the type of activities the family can enjoy, due to the child disabilities. When it comes to the emotional repercussion, the parents will have a hard time watching their child struggle, and trying to figure out every minute of their lives how to help her and encourage her; their lives will be consumed in providing all the attention and physical care this child will need. The second type of impact that resulted from this negligence case was the monetary liability that the court ruled against some of the physicians and one of the hospitals involved in this case. Dr. Karen Roberts was ordered to pay nearly half of a million dollars in punitive damages for the bad decisions and the negligent care. In addition, Laird Memorial Hospital and Dr. Roger Fowler initially settled for almost half of a million dollars, but then were found to be liable for nearly 2.6 million dollars in additional punitive damages (Roberts v. Williamson, 2003).

Legal Implications Related To The Healthcare Organization Compliance The Medical Device Amendment Act of 1976 to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, required that Laird Memorial Hospital implement safety measures, which ensured that all its critical medical devices were operating within safety parameters, that were accurate and reliable, and operated at optimal levels of performance through the implementation of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance plans (U.S Food & Drug Adminstration, 2018). The governing body of Laird Memorial Hospital is ultimately responsible for the discrepancies in health care compliance that most likely occurred in this case. The key element was the fact that the pediatric ventilator used to treat Courtnie was not functioning properly at the time she needed it (Roberts v. Williamson, 2003). This brings into question whether there were adequate policies and compliance supervision in making sure that all medical equipment were regularly inspected for proper operation within safety standards. Moreover, there is also the concern with the availability of continuing education for the staff, as well as ongoing review of protocols for emergency treatments.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 17 Civ. 1766 (LGS) (2018) CYNTHIA E. NEESEMAN v. MT. SINAI WEST, et al.
Facts
Samuel Friedar developed a medical condition and ended up in the hospital due to seizures, and the medication given to him caused pneumonia, which sent him to the Intensive Care Unit.
The patient had to be placed on a ventilator, in addition, the wrong type of gastric tube was placed into his stomach, which caused the patient to aspirate food. After replacing the tube with the correct one, nurses improperly used it and caused further aspiration compromising the patient’s health. The patient got transferred to a different hospital, where the gastric suction machine managing the gastric tube malfunctioned, leading to aspiration, worsening the pneumonia and compromising the patient’s medical
condition. After another hospital transfer, the gastric tube got damaged, but instead of replacing it the doctor patched it and left it in place.
The patient was then transferred to a different hospital and this time was not provided the appropriate gastric suction machine, even after being promised as part of the treatment; this led to another incident of aspiration and the prolongation of the pneumonia. A different hospital received this patient and replaced the damaged gastric tub, but the staff did not know how to use it properly and was introducing food through the wrong port. Once again the patient was transferred to one of the prior hospitals without the right gastric suction machine; this time the patient's wife offered to provide the device herself, but the hospital refused, consequently inadequate suctions complicated the pneumonia and the patient developed sepsis. The same situation continued to occur in other hospitals as the staff cared for this patient, due to the inability to provide the appropriate gastric equipment, or the staff inappropriately using the gastric tube or damaging the tube. Patient condition only kept deteriorating until the wife finally decided to transfer the patient to Florida, but the hospital rejected the transfer claiming that the patient was not stable; the patient died two days
later. Litigations were brought by the patient’s wife against four full-service hospitals, four long-term care facilities and several defendants, citing violations to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), as well as state common laws such as medical malpractice.

Issue The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York needed to determine if these hospitals violated the EMTALA, due to how they consistently transferred this patient from one hospital to another, without providing adequate care. This court also needed to decide if there were negligent acts, and violation of state law due to the medical care that was rendered to this patient. Also, the court needed to rule on the claim for loss of consortium due to the death of the patient
Rule
This court ruled in summary judgment that the complaint failed to state a proper claim under the EMTALA; the motions from all the defendants to dismiss the case were granted. The court also denied the plaintiffs request to amend the EMTALA claim. By dismissing this EMTALA claim, this courts determined that they lost jurisdiction over the case and could not examine the allegations of malpractice, violation of state laws and their loss of consortium. This court dismissed the claims stating that claims of violation of state law need to be litigated at the lower courts with the proper jurisdiction.
Analysis
The court's dismissal of this case, was centered on their view that the original complaint did not allege a denial of access to emergency care for this patient. In their view, this patient had been admitted for days at a time in each of this hospitals and was never turned away, thus invalidating the EMTALA violation claim. In addition, the hospitals were able to demonstrate EMTALA did not apply to them.