The Case of Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center, USA

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Case Description
Medical Malpractice Component
Reference

Case Description

Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center, USA depicts a circumstance in which Decedent Arturo Iturralde was admitted to Hilo Medical Center (HMC), a state-owned and run health institution in Hilo, after experiencing persistent weakness in his legs. Dr. Ricketson, a credentialed orthopedic surgeon, evaluated Arturo in January 2001, and the patient was diagnosed with degenerative spondylolisthesis L4–5 with stenosis. The problem necessitated a spinal fusion operation conducted at the hospital by implanting two rods into the patient’s spine. He improvised the two rods by cutting a steel screwdriver into two pieces and implanting them into Arturo’s spine, believing that waiting so long would be harmful to the patient. The screw shafts were shattered when Arturo fell once or twice the next day. He returned for three further procedures on February 5, 2001, to replace the screwdriver with the predicted titanium rods. After being discharged from the hospital, Arturo died of urosepsis complications on June 18, 2003. As a result, a jury awarded the family $5.6 million after finding both the Hilo medical center and Dr. Ricketson to be negligent.

Medical Malpractice Component

In the case of Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center, USA, Dr. Ricketson had a legal obligation to treat Arturo professionally and without endangering his health. Before beginning the surgery, he never checked to see if the surgery equipment was available, which violated surgeons’ legal obligations in one way or another. Furthermore, Dr. Ricketson’s actions indicate neglect toward the patient by deviating from the medical community’s standards of care (“Iturralde,” 2012). Instead of using the necessary titanium rods, the surgeon utilized makeshift screwdriver strands. The death of Dr. Ricketson’s patient three years after the operation is thought to result from his carelessness. In addition to Dr. Ricketson’s wrongdoing, the non-Party Hawaii Orthopaedics, Inc was charged with negligence for recruiting Dr. Ricketson, who they knew was unfit for the position after being chased in two hospitals.

While Dr. Ricketson decided to operate on Arturo, a legal responsibility was created between him and the patient, and a physician has a duty of professional care to the patient when providing services. Dr. Ricketson was anticipated to utilize the proper titanium rods instead of the improvised screwdriver rods, which were unsuitable for human implantation (“Iturralde,” 2012). Since he never met the standard of care, Dr. Ricketson violated his professional obligation to give care to Arturo by implanting screwdriver rods into his spine. Although it is defined differently in different countries, it is what any other surgeon would have done in executing Arturo’s operation.

Dr. Ricketson’s example of negligence would cause healthcare clients to associate government facilities with inefficiency and incapability, thereby worsening rather than improving a patient’s condition. This is in keeping with the perception that state-controlled institutions are inefficient and poorly administered. While people from other cultures may interpret the issue differently, some people would even resolve conventional therapeutic procedures that they feel are more thorough and sincere in their service. An incident like the one described in Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center, USA, might cause the public to lose faith in state-run healthcare institutions, which they fear can cause more harm than good.

The hospital stated that the medical supply firm had neglected to send the rods. The medical supply company argued that they had been sent and that the surgical team should have double-checked their inventory before starting the procedure (“Iturralde,” 2012). Officials from the company also testified about offering to expedite new rods to the hospital. Although HMC included a range of blame for the traumatic incident, it was Dr. Ricketson’s serious mistake not to follow the practice’s procedures. It is possible that this is why the jury assigned Dr. Ricketson 65 percent of the blame and HMC 35 percent.

Reference

Iturralde v. Hilo medical center, USA. (2012). Casemine. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Case of Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center, USA

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)