The nature of the verdict made upon a case determines whether the case is frivolous or not. In this regard, we will observe how the cases of Mrs. Haimes vs. Temple University Hospital and Mrs. Vandevender vs. Sheetz Inc illustrate the difference. By understanding the findings that the jury uses to make a verdict, we obtain the nature of the case. If the verdict reflects some misconceptions of the law, it indicates a frivolous case. These cases often lead to punitive charges.
The Haimes v. Temple University Hospital case is one of the cases attributed as a frivolous lawsuit. The plaintiff, Mrs. Judith Haimes, filed a case against Temple University hospital for medical malpractices that she experienced while undergoing a CAT scan. In the case, the plaintiff claimed that due to the chronic and disabling headaches that resulted in the course and after the medical exercise, she was unable to fulfill her role as a psychic. The issue entailed the prevalence of headaches after the experience. She was unable to meditate and practice her psychic powers. The jury took four days trying the case and came with a verdict rendering the defendant, Dr. Judith Hart, to compensate $600,000 to the plaintiff for the malpractice (Allen, 2009). Later, the defendant sought for another trial based on the verdict’s excessiveness. The judge ordered a retrial. In this comment, thorough considerations were taken into account while evaluating the two parties’ situations. As a result, Haimes suit was rejected because of inadequate evidence to link the medical expert to the psychic powers used in her job. At the end, the Pennsylvania Superior Court made a verdict that no compensation was supposed to be allocated to Haimes.
There are multiple facts about the hardships that the plaintiff, Mrs. Haimes, experienced after the medical exercise conducted by Dr. Judith Hart. Initially, the plaintiff testified that she was born with psychic powers. In this regard, the psychic powers enable her to have a sixth sense in addition to the common senses. The plaintiff had clairvoyant, which enabled her to read auras. The plaintiff could read shapes, colors, and sizes of aura and interpret different aspects of a person’s past or future. These capabilities of the plaintiff are reflected in her life.
The plaintiff is reported to have offered psychic counseling at New Castle, Delaware. In her free time, she contributed to the law enforcement agencies at least once in a week. Additionally, she taught and featured in social media. Due to suspicion of possible tumors along her nasal cavity, her personal physician recommended her to seek the advice of a cancer expert. Prior to the encounter with Dr. Hart, the plaintiff had undergone multiple surgeries in the attempt to remove tumors from her body. After admitting the counsel of her physician, the plaintiff sought help from Dr. Ronis who checked her conditions and passed her onto a CAT scan (Cassingham, 2005).
Dr Hart conducted a CAT scan on the plaintiff on 7 September 1976 at the radiology department of the hospital. For the CAT scan to be undertaken, the dye had to be injected into the plaintiff’s blood system to allow the success of the process. In the process of Dr. Hart introducing the dye into the bloodstream of the plaintiff, the plaintiff raised a crucial notice. It entailed the issue that she was allergic to the prescribed contrast media. She claimed that during her previous medication exercise where the dye was used, she encountered allergic reactions portrayed by nausea and vomiting. This discussion brought to the consideration of the radiologist the effects the dye would have on the plaintiff body and possible precautions that required consideration. In this regard, Dr. Hart reorganized the procedure by instituting an intravenous line, which would allow the injection of dye with the monitoring of the plaintiff `s reactions. In the event that the response was adverse, epinephrine and Benadryl would be administered. After the procedure had been realigned according to the plaintiff’s request, the medication began. During the course of the therapy, the plaintiff responded as she had earlier proclaimed and Dr. Hart introduced the usage of epinephrine and Benadryl. The plaintiff remained in the radiological department under tight scrutiny of the practitioners. At the end of the exercise, the plaintiff insisted on being discharged and the doctor accepted her request. With dissatisfaction derived after the exercise, the plaintiff sought the counsel of another physician within the same hospital. In the following two days, the plaintiff experienced vomiting, nausea and headache, which continued on a low degree later.
Since most of the plaintiff’s testimony relied more on the interference of psychic powers with the aftermath of the CAT scan in the hospital, a thorough analysis was to be undertaken. In her testimony, the plaintiff mentions that her ability to read the aura was based on deep meditation facilitated by good health. Nevertheless, after the CAT scan, the plaintiff efforts to undertake her normal routine work were impossible due to a severe headache. Ultimately, she could not succeed in reading auras anymore. This was followed by closure of her office and the inability to assist the law enforcers. Following this unfortunate outcome, the plaintiff could not read aura and forecast the occurrence of a motor vehicle accident involving her son. This fateful event led to her son’s demise.
On the side of the plaintiff’s husband, Mr. Haimes testified that ever since her wife underwent a CAT scan, their family had encountered immense challenges. These challenges had considerably affected their normal day-to-day lives. The plaintiff presented several witnesses to support her claim. Lieutenant Fritzinger testified that the plaintiff psychic powers had enabled him to unravel a homicide victim. In this situation, the plaintiff used her powers to explain the age, family and lifestyles of suspects, which led to the arrest of the main culprit. Additionally, other witness like Dr. Millman, Mary Fritzinger and Robert McCormack testified about the assistance they received from the plaintiff.
In this case, the major issues that arose included the manner in which the CAT scan led to the loss of psychic powers. In arguing out the causal relationship that exists between the two scenarios that the plaintiff presented in the lawsuit, we determine the issues that led to the controversies in the case. The plaintiff illustrates that after the CAT scan involving the usage of dye, she reacted in a manner she had earlier proclaimed. Although precautions had been taken, it could not serve in her interests. As a result, she had experienced mental spinning which led to difficulty in breathing and induced vomiting. In this regard, the plaintiff describes that her later dysfunctional abilities in her occupation are related to the malpractices that occurred during the exercise. Similarly, the fact that nausea and headache continued after the exercise relates with health conditions she was experiencing rather than the CAT scan effects. The inability of the plaintiff to perform psychic counseling after the medical exercise does not illustrate the connection with the CAT scan practice. Additionally, considering the effects of the contrast medium that had been introduced to her bloodstream, the radiology exercise would not have been conducted. Similarly, the claim that Dr. Hart took a lot of precaution in administering the contrast medium to Mrs. Haimes bloodstream does not demonstrate negligence as to warrant the filing of a lawsuit for Mrs. Haimes’ failure to perform her psychic counseling (Koenig, 2001).
The first verdict, that involved the compensation for Mrs. Haimes in relation to the malpractices that she encountered at the hospital, necessitated the jury to consider the doctor’s level of negligence. In this regard, Dr. Hart was regarded as having undertaken the CAT scan in an unprofessional manner despite the alarm aroused by the plaintiff of her allergic reaction to the dye. Therefore, this caused severe health conditions, which led to her inability to perform psychic counseling. This made the plaintiff lose her role in the field of explaining auras, resulting to the loss of income. Later, the defendant applied for retrial based on the misconceptions about the law exhibited by the jury. The appeal received acceptance and the jury was required to make an appropriate verdict. In this situation, the jury considered the plaintiff cause of complains as being the inability to counsel due to severe headache, which escalated due to the CAT scan at the hospital. Similarly, the jury considered the psychic powers law as well as the doctors’ professionalism law, which explains the cause of the differences between the two parties.
In the first trial, the jury had made a verdict that Dr. Hart should compensate Mrs. Hamies $600,000 because of the medical negligence, which made the plaintiff lose her psychic powers. After the defendant made an appeal for the second trail due to the excessiveness of the verdict, the jury had to make another verdict based on thorough analysis of the case facts. With no clear evidence on how the plaintiff lost her psychic powers due to the CAT scan undertaken by Dr. Hart, the jury made a verdict that no amount of compensation was to be awarded to Mrs. Hamies. This led to the ultimate settlement of the case between Mrs. Hamies and Temple University Hospital.
The jury made an appropriate decision at the end of the second trial since there was no causal relationship between the CAT scan performed at the hospital and the plaintiff claim for loss of psychic powers. Additionally, the plaintiff claim that there was negligence within the doctor’s act at the cause of CAT scan is not clear since proper precautions were adopted, which led to the success of the exercise. This proves that the verdict was valid and reasonable.
The ethical issues exhibited in the case include standards of medical practices and professionalism among psychics and mediums. At the first instance, the defendant undertook the appropriate precautions to ensure that the CAT scan was successful. This is demonstrated by the realignment of the procedure that was to be adopted at the course of the process to minimize the plaintiff’s exposure to the effects of the contrast medium. For the plaintiff, the fact that her complain relates with how her professionalism was carried out explains the codes of conduct that should be incorporated. These two moral standards displayed in the practice of two professions differ significantly with the legal issues adopted in the delivery of the verdict. The difference is portrayed by cause of the findings, which enable the jury to make the verdict. Nevertheless, some basic ethical standards were borrowed in the arrival of the verdict.
In the case of Mrs. Vandevender vs. Sheetz Inc., the latter was allocated a punitive compensatory to Mrs. Vandevender for the alleged firing and oppression in the company. This occurred because Mrs. Vandevender injured herself in a store while opening a large pickle jar. The State Supreme Court accepted the claim by the plaintiff that the company discriminated and retaliated against her. The damages charged to the defendant included $126,166 for compensatory charges, $170,000 for emotional trauma and $2.7 million as punitive charges. Despite the defendant claimed that the charges were punitive and sought for an appeal, the court’s verdict was upheld in consideration to the Human Rights Act (Lodmell, 2004).
The facts portrayed in the case illustrate how Mrs. Vandevender, being an employee of Sheetz Inc., suffered victimization after her injury. Initially, Mrs. Vandevender was hired as a salesperson in Sheetz Inc. on June, 8th1991. After a six months experience, she was promoted to an assistant manager. On 4th of January 1991, she experienced an injury on her back at one of the stores. Later, she went to a physician to seek treatment. In spite of the injury, she proceeded to work until she developed temporary total disability. After undergoing a surgery, she could not return to work to accomplish the same tasks as before. When she notified the store manager about her condition, the store manager told the plaintiff that she could not return to work due to her inability to meet the company’s policies. In this regard, Sheetz Inc. turned down her request based on the plaintiff’s physician declaration that she was temporary disabled. Her conditions were attributed to the right to receive TTD benefits. Later, the physician further subjected the plaintiff to thorough examination and later approved her as medically fit. With this decision, the plaintiff’s TTD benefits were stopped on 11th of October 1994.
Due to the termination of the TTD benefits, the plaintiff sought the assistance of a counselor regarding whether Sheetz Inc. would accept their former employee for rehiring. On 1st of December 1994, the plaintiff filed a case against Sheetz Inc. for their denial to hire their former employee. The fact that the employee was dismissed subsequently after a work-related injury portrayed a violation of the Workers Compensation Act. In the course of the trial, the defendant claimed that the company could not accommodate the plaintiff since the company’s terms required all workers to lift up to five pounds weight on a regular basis. In this regard, the plaintiff demanded reinstating to her job since she was medically fit. After the company had accepted the plaintiff`s request, they rehired her as a sales clerk, but she had to meet the incorporation standards. After a period of four years, between 1991 and 1995, the plaintiff felt that she was being discriminated and she filed another lawsuit.
The issues that emanate from the case relate to the plaintiff’s treatment at the incorporation after encountering a work-related injury. Initially, the worker was deemed unfit for the task forcing her to withdraw from operation while she got better. During this period, time elapsed, and after one year, the company claimed that her absence at job is an indication of her personal resignation. Consequently, the TTD benefits were withdrawn, which exposed the plaintiff to more challenges. After looking for a consideration from the company for rehire, the company turned down her request until she filed a lawsuit against it. The aftermath of the trial led to accepting the plaintiff back to work. Considering this impact, the company imposed stricter staff conditions. The conditions necessitated the injured plaintiff, despite her recovery, to file another lawsuit in complaining against exploitation and discrimination by the company.
In addressing the plaintiff complains, the jury considered the federal law with particular emphasis on the Workers Compensation Act. This Act illustrates the anti-discrimination that workers should be exposed to at their workplace. With the discrimination that the plaintiff encountered after the work-related injury in the incorporation, the jury considered this practice as a violation of the Human Rights Act. This later led to the subjection of the company to punitive charges. Generally, the Workers Compensation and Human Rights Acts played a major role in the verdict.
In June 1995, the plaintiff amended her lawsuit against Sheetz Inc. in relation to their discrimination at workplace and assault by Mrs. Imler. Within a period of three days, a jury made the final verdict, which required the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the exploitation she undertook. This compensation included $124,166 for damages exposure, $170,000 for emotional misery and humiliation, and $2.7 million in retaliatory damages. This verdict was final, despite its punitive nature to the defendant.
Concerning the degree of validity of the verdict, it was appropriate for the lawsuit. This is illustrated by the humiliation that the plaintiff experienced in the company. Considering the plaintiff work-related injury, it is essential to understand the level of misery that workers were exposed to due to the company’s negligence. The fact that the charges were punitive would serve in the interests of the plaintiff for her long-term human rights violation within the company. Similarly, the verdict was a deterrent to malpractices by the company regarding the exploitation they bestowed upon the workers (Twerski, 2003).
The ethical codes addressed in this case concern the consideration of human rights and employees’ welfare. In this case, the company’s practice indicates the level of exploitation prevalent within incorporations. In this regard, Sheetz Inc. had neglected the observation of employees’ welfare as well as human rights. This is portrayed by the discrimination that they subjected the plaintiff even after receiving a work-related injury. The jury’s decision on the case took into consideration the codes of conduct essential in the course of work. In their verdict, they considered the adversity of exploitation the plaintiff received from the company. This demonstrates an appropriate approach to the legal issues by adoption of ethical codes.
The consideration of the verdicts of the two cases as being frivolous lawsuits is not true. In my opinion, Mrs. Haimes vs. Temple University Hospital is a frivolous case while Mrs. Vandevender vs. Sheetz Inc is not. In the first case, the jury made the verdict based on the causal relationship that existed between the CAT scan and the plaintiff inability to perform her psychic counseling. Since there were no evidence to prove that the plaintiff`s experience at the hospital led to her inability to work due to negligence, the hospital was not liable for the plaintiff’s misfortunes. In this regard, the first verdict was punitive, which illustrates the misconception of law in verdict conclusion. This led to the allocation of punitive charges to the defendant. Nevertheless, the defendant appeal for the consideration of another trial was successful and the charges were dismissed since they were baseless. Meanwhile the Mrs. Vandevender vs. Sheetz Inc. case received a valid verdict, which suited the needs presented by the complainant.
Under the case of Mrs. Haimes vs. Temple University Hospital, the radiologist would have taken into consideration the plaintiff`s request for dismissal of dye. In this regard, further accusations and complains by the plaintiff would have been eliminated. This process would have been realized by the adoption of other contrast medium, which would have made the doctor non-accusable. For the Mrs. Vandevender vs. Sheetz Inc., the company had to observe the human rights and workers compensation regulation to avoid vulnerabilities to such punitive charges. In this context, the company would have addressed the needs of its employees as well as clients in consideration to the law.
The evaluation of the two cases gives an insight on how frivolous cases occur with the application of the law. These two cases clearly distinguish a frivolous case from an actual case. As a result, it elaborates how at times there are misconceptions of the law leading to punitive charges against the defendants.