During a school field trip to a local orchard, 13-year-old Johnny Chapman fell out of a tree while picking apples. That evening, his parents took him to the emergency room at Woodville Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a fractured ulna. He was admitted and surgery was necessary. Johnny was discharged after a two-day stay. Johnny’s parents subsequently sued the school system and two of the three parent chaperones who had volunteered for failing to safeguard Johnny during the field trip and failing to seek emergency medical care.
Three months later, the health information department director at Woodville Hospital, Jay Forshall, was subpoenaed with directions to bring Johnny’s record to a deposition the following day. The deposition was being held in Columbia City, which was 125 miles away. Jay complied with the subpoena by preparing Johnny’s medical record. Woodville Hospital’s health record was hybrid, so Jay printed out the electronic components from the hospital’s electronic health record system and collected the remaining components that existed on paper.
Jay drove to Columbia City the following morning. During the deposition, legal counsel for the Chapmans proceeded to ask Jay about Johnny’s medical record. Jay was asked to verify that the record was Johnny’s and that it was prepared in the usual course of business. He was then asked about the contents of the record. One question posed to him was whether Tylenol, which had been administered to Johnny at the hospital, was given to lessen Johnny’s pain. Jay stated that he presumed legal counsel’s statement was true, as that is a common reason for Tylenol to be given. Jay was also asked to read an otherwise illegible note that the physician, Dr. Fogle, had written on the discharge instruction sheet. Dr. Fogle was a visiting physician, and Jay was not familiar with her handwriting. Nonetheless, he tried his best to assist legal counsel in deciphering the note.
Jay was not involved in the case any further following the deposition. Several months later, he read in the newspaper that the case had gone to trial. One of the parent chaperones who was initially sued never responded to the complaint and did not participate in any of the proceedings, including the trial. A jury rendered a verdict against the school system and the three parent chaperones, with all being required to pay money damages.
- A verdict was rendered against three parent chaperones. How was the third parent included in the case?
- Based on the facts, was Jay Forshall required to provide Johnny’s records in response to the subpoena? Why or why not? What factors did you take into consideration?
- Were all of the questions asked of Jay Forshall during the deposition appropriate? (Bloom’s Level: 4) If your answer is no, what questions were inappropriate and why?
- Identify other legal procedural issues associated with this case
Each question should be at least a paragraph
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
As a medical professor, it is vital to understand the laws and regulations surrounding medical records, patient confidentiality, and legal procedures. In the scenario provided, Johnny Chapman was admitted to Woodville Hospital and subsequently sued the school system and two parent chaperones. In addition, the health information department director, Jay Forshall, was served a subpoena for Johnny’s medical records. This case raises several legal and ethical questions that require examination.
1. A verdict was rendered against three parent chaperones. How was the third parent included in the case?
It is unclear from the scenario how the third parent was included in the case. It is possible that they were part of the group of parent chaperones accompanying Johnny on the field trip but were not initially named in the lawsuit. However, it is essential to examine the evidence presented during the trial to determine the involvement of the third parent in the incident and their liability in the case.
2. Based on the facts, was Jay Forshall required to provide Johnny’s records in response to the subpoena? Why or why not? What factors did you take into consideration?
Jay Forshall was required to provide Johnny’s medical records in response to the subpoena as a healthcare provider. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) mandates that healthcare providers disclose medical records upon receipt of a valid subpoena. A subpoena is considered valid if it meets the necessary requirements, such as being properly issued and describing the records sought with specificity. Jay complied with the requirements of the subpoena and produced Johnny’s medical records during the deposition.
3. Were all of the questions asked of Jay Forshall during the deposition appropriate? (Bloom’s Level: 4) If your answer is no, what questions were inappropriate and why?
Not all of the questions asked of Jay Forshall during the deposition were appropriate. The question posed by legal counsel regarding whether Tylenol was administered to Johnny to lessen his pain was inappropriate. It is a leading question that assumes a fact not in evidence, and it is not within the scope of Jay’s knowledge as he is not a physician or a nurse with knowledge of Johnny’s medical treatment plan. Furthermore, Jay’s presumption regarding the use of Tylenol does not constitute reliable evidence in court.
4. Identify other legal procedural issues associated with this case.
One legal procedural issue associated with this case is the failure of one of the parent chaperones to respond to the lawsuit. Without their participation in the proceedings, their liability and involvement in the incident are not adequately examined, which may have affected the verdict. Another issue is the use of Dr. Fogle’s handwriting, which was illegible, on the discharge instruction sheet. Medical records and prescriptions should be written in a clear and legible manner to avoid misinterpretation and potential malpractice claims.
