User:Azhu2/sandbox

The analysis is very clear and specific, and the conclusion is very well written. Rule, analysis, and conclusion match up with each other well. The issue only mentioned the standard of care but not negligence, while the term "the standard of care" is not mentioned in the following sections. Perhaps group 4 can elaborate more on the standard of care in negligence law in the issue, or explain the relationship between the standard of care and negligence a bit more in the rule section.

~MLJnotK (Group 1)

We're confused because we thought your topic was about prison labor, and your group wanted to focus on the Fair Labor Standards Act. Also, as we're reading, we found that your group said Mark (the plaintiff) would sue. Since he's dead, wouldn't his family be the plaintiff or be the ones doing the suing for Mark? The IRAC scenario, issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion are straight forward and specific. We agree with the IRAC conclusion that the doctor did not meet the standard of care. We have another question: are the other staffs in your scenario also liable for the death of Mark? As for your summary, we noticed that your group talked more about standard of care than negligence. So another suggestion would be to include another 3-4 sentences about negligence in your summary.

Ivy & Coral (Group 3)

Mark goes to the emergency room complaining about stomach pains. The doctor does not believe that he has legitimate pain, but is only seeking for drugs and is already under the influence of both drug and alcohol. The doctor refuses to see or treat the patient. The doctor also told his staff to ignore Mark and let him walk to another hospital. After 4 hours of waiting and complaining about stomach pain, Mark gets up, walks out, and collapses dead in the hospital entrance.

Issue: Did the doctor fail to meet the standard of care in treating Mark?

Rule: Negligence claims that the plaintiff prove four elements: duty, breach, cause, and harm.

Analysis: Duty: The doctor employed by the hospital is required to treat all patients that come into the hospital. As a result, he or she owes a duty to treat the patient regardless of their condition and intention. Breach: The refusal to treat the patient was a breach of the doctor's obligation to treat all patients in the hospital. Cause: The doctor leaving and abandoning Mark caused him to leave the hospital when he was in obvious physical pain. Mark was leaving the hospital when he collapsed independent of any other factors. Harm: The patient, Mark, died in front of the hospital.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the doctor can be successfully sued based on negligence. Mark, the plaintiff, has met all the requirements to establish the defendant committed professional negligence against the plaintiff which resulted in his death. The doctor did not meet the standard of care.

Summary: The standard of care is the degree of caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care. In certain industries like the medical field, the standard of care is determined by the standard that would be exercised by the professional or product in the work. In this scenario, the determination of medical malpractice can be determined using the Bolam Test. 1) All patients receive appropriate care regardless of financial means. 2) Duty to inform 3) Diagnostic and treatment process to all patients 4) A patient expects the same standard of care as a person who pays for the same service. Standard of care and medical malpractice tie into negligence because the doctor has a duty to complete a task. If he/she breached that duty and the patient is harm as a result, they can be found liable for negligence.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice