Read the following fictional “case.”
An on-call ophthalmologist (eye specialist), without seeing the patient, diagnosed his eye pain associated with sensitivity to light and nausea, as sinusitis. In fact, the patient had acute angle closure glaucoma and lost the sight in the eye.
- What are the facts in this case?
- Are the 4 D’s present?
- How would you argue for the plaintiff?
- How would you argue for the defendant?
- If you were on the jury, based on the above facts, what would your findings be?
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
The given case presents a scenario where an on-call ophthalmologist misdiagnosed a patient suffering from acute angle closure glaucoma. This assignment aims to discuss the facts of the case, identify if the 4 D’s are present, and provide arguments for both the plaintiff and defendant. In addition, the assignment will offer the student’s personal findings if they were a member of the jury.
1) What are the facts in this case?
The facts of the case include an on-call ophthalmologist diagnosing a patient’s eye pain with symptoms of light sensitivity and nausea as sinusitis. However, the patient was suffering from acute angle closure glaucoma and lost sight in the eye due to the delay in diagnosis. The ophthalmologist did not conduct any physical examination of the patient and solely relied on the patient’s verbal description of symptoms.
2) Are the 4 D’s present?
The 4 D’s refer to Duty, Dereliction, Direct Causation, and Damages. Duty refers to the medical professional’s responsibility to provide appropriate care to the patient. Dereliction implies a breach of duty by the medical professional. Direct causation refers to the medical professional’s negligence that directly caused harm to the patient, and damages refer to the injury incurred by the patient. In this case, the facts show that the ophthalmologist had a duty to treat the patient, but the dereliction of this duty occurred when the specialist failed to conduct a physical examination or provide an appropriate diagnosis, which directly caused damages in the form of a loss of sight. Therefore, all 4 D’s are present in this case.
3) How would you argue for the plaintiff?
As an advocate for the plaintiff, I would argue that the on-call ophthalmologist’s negligence caused harm to the patient. The medical professional failed to meet the expected standard of care prescribed for their profession, which resulted in the patient losing his sight. The ophthalmologist did not conduct any physical examination, which is a breach of the duty of care owed to patients. Additionally, by diagnosing sinusitis without performing a proper examination, the ophthalmologist failed to render an appropriate standard of care, directly leading to injuries incurred by the patient.
4) How would you argue for the defendant?
As an advocate for the defendant, I would argue that the ophthalmologist acted in good faith and provided a medical opinion based on their interpretation of the patient’s symptoms. The court should consider that diagnostic errors can occur in medicine and that the ophthalmologist did not have any intention to cause harm. The court should also examine whether the patient provided complete and accurate information regarding symptoms that would have facilitated accurate diagnosis by the medical professional.
5) If you were on the jury, based on the above facts, what would your findings be?
As a member of the jury, based on the facts of the case, I would conclude that the on-call ophthalmologist was negligent in their duty of care towards the patient. The ophthalmologist did not conduct a physical examination and failed to diagnose the patient’s acute angle closure glaucoma, which resulted in permanent loss of sight. The doctor’s negligence constitutes a breach of the duty of care, and direct causation is evident in the injury incurred by the patient. Therefore, I would find the defendant guilty of medical negligence, and the plaintiff should be awarded damages for the injuries incurred.
