Seavers vs. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge is a case that took place between Mrs. Seavers and the negligent behavior of nurses towards her, during the treatment at the Medical Center. It raises the issues of medical responsibility and res ipsa loquitur. This means that the result of the action, in this case, negligence, proves that the nursing staff acted without reasonable care and the standards were not adhered to. Mrs. Seavers was being treated for pneumonia at ICU (Intensive Care Unit) and she argues that the restraints, which were used on her arms to prevent her from taking out the IV or endotracheal tube, have damaged her ulnar nerve on the right hand. It is evident that before her treatment at the ICU her right hand was functioning without any problems and both sides of the case agree on this.
The nurses and any other medical staff are responsible for the care of heavily sedated and sometimes, unconscious patients, this fact cannot be disputed. But the Medical Center has filed an appeal for summary conviction because there is no proof that the patient would not receive the injury even in case proper procedures were followed and standard of care was in place. According to the law, res ipsa loquitur can be used if it is understandable to the regular public, as the jury will not know all the details of treatment, standards of care that are complex and known by medical staff, and the damage to the ulnar nerve (Pozgar 117).
But, the fact that her arm was functioning normally before the ICU and that other doctors confirm that the damage to the nerve is caused by a heavy object putting pressure or restraining the particular nerve, the proof should not be needed. The mechanism of the injury could not have been caused in any other way. Because the patient was sedated and unconscious, she could not have voluntarily done this and there would be no reason for her to injure her arm.
Also, as it is proven that the ICU nurses take full responsibility for the patients, Mrs. Seavers cannot be held responsible for her injuries in any case. Only because a professional is needed to explain the details of standards of care, it does not mean that the nurses were not negligent. The mere fact that Mrs. Seavers’ arm worked before and does not work now, as well as the absence of any time and mechanism during her treatment through which she could have acquired the injury, prove that it is the medical staff who is responsible for the damage to the nerve. There is a slight possibility that the nurses were taking great care and watching the restraints but the patient unknowingly twisted her arm in the sleep, but still, this would not excuse the medical staff.
They must check for such occurrences because they are there for the sole purpose of taking full care of the patient and predicting such a situation. Either way, the result of the patient’s injuries proves that the nurses are responsible and that the standard of care was not carried out. Even if professionals are needed to explain the case to the public, this does not negate the factual and physical actions of people, who are responsible and are paid to take proper care of patients.
Works Cited
Pozgar, George. Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration. 11th ed. Sudbury, United States: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011.