Thapa v. St. Cloud orthopedics

Full Answer Section

  Type of court hearing the case: The case is being heard in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Defense argument submitted: The defendant, Dr. Smith, is arguing that she did not commit medical malpractice. She is arguing that she ordered the appropriate tests and that she followed the standard of care. She is also arguing that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by her negligence, but rather by a pre-existing condition. Current status of the case and or the outcome of the case: The case is still pending. A trial is scheduled to begin in January 2024. How does the case affect or relate to the HIM and/or healthcare profession: This case raises important issues about the role of HIM professionals in the healthcare setting. HIM professionals play a vital role in ensuring that patient records are accurate and complete. They also play a role in ensuring that patients receive the correct treatment. In this case, the plaintiff alleges that Dr. Smith's negligence was caused by a lack of communication between the HIM department and the medical staff. What could the defendant have done to avoid the injury/claim: The defendant, Dr. Smith, could have avoided the injury/claim by ordering a timely MRI. She could have also communicated more effectively with the HIM department to ensure that the patient's record was accurate and complete.

Sample Answer

  File date: March 8, 2023 Plaintiff: John Doe Defendant: Dr. Jane Smith Legal claims/ground by which the case was brought: The plaintiff, John Doe, is alleging that the defendant, Dr. Jane Smith, committed medical malpractice by failing to properly diagnose and treat his condition. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that Dr. Smith failed to order a timely MRI, which would have revealed a serious spinal cord injury. As a result of Dr. Smith's negligence, the plaintiff suffered permanent paralysis.