Question

In the case of Moskovitz v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr

If you work for Mt. Sinai Medical Center and you were on their administrative staff trying to establish a finding for whether negligence occurred.

*In doing so, provide an analysis of the potential level of exposure that would support that.

*Include the effect of possibly exposing patient health information (PHI), privacy.

Facts

The evidence supported a finding that the plaintiff's descendent had a very good chance of long-term survival if the tumor was found to be malignant at a time when it was less than one centimeter in size. The evidence supports the fact that the tumor had not grown in size as of May 7, 1987. If doctor Figgie had performed a biopsy prior to this date cancer would not have Metastasized Anne the descendent would have been recovered. Doctor Figgie’s office chart which is the primary reference material in analyzing a physician's conduct it's filled with contradictions and inconsistencies even if doctor Figgie was first informed up the growth on February 23rd, 1987 he still fell below acceptable standards of care because he did not conduct a further investigation until X-rays performed in September 1987 all handwritten entries which appear on or prior to September 24th, 1987 indicating that it bad biopsy was recommended or that the descendent refused further work up to work subsequent changes of the records done to justify feedings condom. The sentence we will, therefore, elect to continue to observe under September 21st, 1987 entry was white and out and the handwritten entry is she does not want exceptional biopsy we will observe what is a subsequent alteration of the records. ID. At 338 the Court of Appeals upheld the finding of liability against Figgie the wrongful death and survival claims the Court of Appeals found that the appellate was not entitled to punitive damages as a matter of law the Court of Appeals revised the judgment of that route as to the award of damages and recommended the case for a new trial only on the issue of compensatory damages.

Issue

Is an intentional alteration or destruction of medical records to avoid liability sufficient to show actual malice? Can punitive damages be awarded regardless of whether the act of altering or destroying records directly causes compensable harm?

Holding

The Ohio Supreme Court held that the evidence regarding the physician's alteration of the patient's records supported an award of punitive damages regardless of whether the alteration causes actual harm.

Reason

The intentional alteration or destruction of medical records to avoid liability for medical neglect negligence is sufficient to show actual malice punitive damage may be awarded regardless of whether the active altering falsifying or destroying records directly causes compensable harm. the jury's award of punitive damages was based on Figgie's alteration or destruction of medical records. The purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate a plaintiff but to punish and deter certain conduct the court warned others to refrain from similar conduct through an award of punitive damages Figgie’s alteration of records exhibited at the total disregard for the law and the rights of MOSKOBITZ and her family had the copy of page 7 of Figgie's office chart had been recovered from the radiation Department records at University Hospital the appellate would have been substantially less likely to succeed in this case. The copy of the chart other records produced by Figgie would have tended 2 exculpate feeding for his medical negligence while placing the blame for his failures on MOSKOVITZ.

Answer 1

A physician was treating a patient for cancer. After some time the cancer had metastasized. The physician failed in conducting biopsy that would have stopped spreading of cancer and could have saved the life of the patient.

The physician also changed statements in patient’s medical records, in order to show that the patient refused biopsy. The changes were made by the physician in order to save him from any malpractice liability.

Following procedures could be followed when clarifying an entry in a patient’s medical records:

• The hospitals should provide a separate copy of the statements made by the physicians and should also provide a separate copy of the procedures performed to the patient.

• The list of tests carried out and the procedures done should be given on the same day of performing of the test. There should be no delay in providing of the statements related with the performing of the tests and the processes carried out by the hospital.

• The hospital should inform the relatives of the patient about the tests being carried out and the possible consequences of the tests.

• The statements made by the physicians and the processes carried out by the physicians should be sent to an independent body in the hospital. The body should save the statements and records from all medical departments.

Thus, following are some of the procedures that could be followed when clarifying an entry in a patient’s medical records.

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****