“Brandon Wilson vs. Edward Hospital”

Olajumoke Lawal

HCM 388

“Brandon Wilson vs. Edward Hospital”

12/2/13

I.                    Procedure

a.      Who are the parties?

·                     Brandon Wilson and Daphne Wilson (Plaintiff)

·                     Circuit court Du page (Defendant)

b.      Who brought the action?

·         United Brandon Wilson and Daphne Wilson (Plaintiff)

c.        In what court did the case originate?

·         Circuit court Du page

d.      Who won at the trial-court level?

·         No one won

e.      What is the appellate history of the case?

·         The Plaintiffs appealed and the outcome was the appellate court rejected plaintiffs argument. The appellate court decided the plaintiffs only had a single claim for negligence based upon vicarious liability that was supported in different ways by allegations of actual agency and apparent agency. The case has gotten appealed 3 times and rejected each time.

II.                  Facts

·         Brandon was a minor

·         Occurred in 2003

·         In 2004 plaintiff and mother filed complaint

·         Plaintiff broke right femur

·         Plaintiff was taken to Edward hospital

·         Surgery was performed

·         Plaintiff vomited into lungs

·         Complainant alleged the surgery was not emergency

·         Doctors were negligent in providing fasting period before surgery

·         All persons working at the hospital were employees/ agents of the hospital

·         Defendants doctor was an agent in law or in fact

·         Hospital was liable for the wrongful acts

·         Hospital filed motion for partial summary

·         Trial court granted partial summary

      b.   Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion?

·                     Why wasn’t the patient’s stomach pumped?

·                     What other evidence can the plaintiff provide to prove negligence

III.                Issues

a.      What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court?

·                     Negligence

b.      Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues?

·         Yes

IV.               Holding

a.      What is the court’s precise holding (decision)?

·         The courts precise holding was they revered the appellate courts judgment and there was no final conclusion because of resjudicada. There was no final order entered therefore the order was not final for res judicata purposes, and plaintiffs were not barred from asserting their allegations of apparent agency in their refiled action

b.      What is its rationale for that decision?

·                     Res judicada did not stand because no agency, there was negligence

·                     Do you agree with that rationale?

Yes, there was enough evidence to go to trial because there was clearly negligence.

V.                 Implications

a.      What does the case mean for healthcare today?

·         Healthcare providers need to be aware of what is going on in their facilities.

·         Providers should take their time to understand precautions need to be taken before surgery.

b.      What were its implications when the decision was announced?

·         No Final order

c.       How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these implications?

·         Providers should take their time to understand precautions need to be taken before surgery.

·          

d.      What would be different today if the case had been decided differently?

·                     Similar cases would occur more often if people were to see cases such as this get a simple smack on the wrist as punishment.

·                     Providers would tend to neglect what needs to be done before the actual surgery.

 I agreed with the court’s decision so far. There is clearly negligence and the hospital and doctors at fault should be held responsible for this negligence.