College of Southern Maryland Comparative Analysis Paper

SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

View attached explanation and answer. Let me know if you have any questions.1Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, 684 N.W.2d 864, 471 Mich. 411 (2004) AnalysisStudent’s NameInstitution AffiliationProfessor’s NameCourse NameDate2Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, 684 N.W.2d 864, 471 Mich. 411 (2004) AnalysisThe Court That Decided This CaseThe case between Denise Bryant, Denise BRYANT, as a Personal Representative of theEstate of Catherine Hunt, the Deceased, and Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre was decided in theSupreme Court of Michigan. However, the case was first filed in the case in Wayne Circuit Courtin April 1998 (Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, 684 N.W.2d 864, 471 Mich. 411,2004). The case was officially presented and argued by the plaintiff in the Supreme Court onJanuary 13, 2004, while the judgment was made on July 30 of the same year.The Procedural History of the CaseThe plaintiff’s decedent, who was known as Catherine Hunt, resided in Oakpointe andwas suffering from diabetes and multi-infarct dementia. Moreover, she had suffered strokes,which made her demand complete care. Hunt could not walk, and she could not cloth herself, eat,bathe, and even toilet on her own. The several strokes she had suffered destroyed her reasoningand judgment ability, which caused her to suffer cerebral atrophy.Hunt’s condition denied her ability to control her locomotion skills, which subjected herto the risk of sliding and falling anyhow or experiencing suffocation due to positional asphyxia.Due to Hunt’s problem, the defendant’s medical director, Dr Donald Dreyfuss, applied differentmechanisms to restrain Hunt from falling (Justia US law, 2022). These mechanisms included bedrails to restrain Hunt from sliding from the bed and a restraining vest to prevent Hunt frommoving her arms. Other authorized restrains included wedge pads on the edge of the mattress toprevent her from hurting herself.Medical caregivers such as practical nurses, registered nurses, and nursing assistantsmonitor Hunt’s life every moment. As reported, two nursing assistants realized that Hunt was3lying closer to the bed rails of the bed and was entangled with her bedsheets and restraining vest.The two nursing assistants untangled Hunt from the bedsheets and reported to the supervisor thatmore care needed to be taken because the wedges were not protecting Hunt enough.The next day Hunt was found entangled by the same protecting wedges after slippingbetween the bed rails. Her neck was in the gap between the mattress and the rails of the bed,which prevented her from breathing (Justia US law, 2022). This caused Hunt to be transported tothe nursing residence, where she was placed in a life-supporting machine but could not recover.Thus, she died on March 4 1997. Positional asphyxia was noted as the cause of her death.Thus, the plaintiff, Denise Bryant, decided to file a negligence case in the Wayne CircuitCourt in 1998. However, the defendant stated that the plaintiff’s case was more of medicalmalpractice rather than negligence that the plaintiff had reported in the same year. At that time,Pamela Harwood, the judge, approved that the claims of the case were more of ordinarynegligence, thus allowing the case to continue. However, Harwood quitted the case, which JudgeJohn Murphy assumed. In 1998, there were amendments in the case by the plaintiff who allegedthe defendant of three counts of negligence; negligence infliction of emotional distress, ordinarynegligence by or through, and gross negligence by the defendants’ employees.Laws, Statutes, and Acts, Which Pertains To This CaseSeveral laws, statutes, and acts pertained to the case of Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa NursingCentre, such as Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hosp. Corp., 460 Mich. 26, 594 N.W.2d 455(1999), which stated that failure to inspect and train were part of medical malpractice. Moreover,other statutes that were pertained in the case included MCR 2.116(C) (4), (C) (7).and (C) (8).This statute makes the motion of summary disposition by the defendant to be denied since thedefendant failed to raise a claim (Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, 684 N.W.2d 864,4471 Mich. 411, 2004). Section M.C.L. § 600.2912b of Michigan statute refers to the actionsalleging malpractices in medical. It involves mailing, notice, and access to medical records,where the plaintiff gives notice to the defendant about the potential medical malpractice about182 days before filing a case.The law made in the MCR 2.116(G) (5)-(6) involves the admission, pleadings, anddocumentary of the evidence. Its states that the plaintiff is responsible for filing a jurisdiction.Another law that pertained to this case was M.C.L. § 600.5838a, a medical malpractice law thatstated that negligence was the basic standard for the case. Moreover, the Darris act 594 N.W.2d455 indicated different levels. For instance, at 47, it outlined that the plaintiff’s allegations aboutthe monitoring of the patient and staffing decisions should be referred to the management of themedical institution. Therefore, these allegations did not relate directly to ordinary negligence.Legal Issues Decided By the In This CaseSeveral issues were decided in the Bry…



error: Content is protected !!