One of her clients commended she have a CT scan administered due to the fact that she had suffered from numerous tumors in the past. Mrs… Haines went to Temple University Hospital for the CT scan and discussed her known allergies with her doctor. She informed Dry. Judith Hart she was allergic to the iodine dye that is usually administered to patients prior to the CT scan and had been cautioned to avoid iodine based dyes. Although Haines told the doctor of her allergies, Dry. Hart proceeded to inject her with iodine in small doses. Dry. Hart stated she would inject little amounts at a time and if something happened, she would stop the injection.
The doctor also “set up an intravenous line so that if a problem arose, drugs could be administered quickly’ (Haines v. Temple University, 1986, p. 4). When the first few drops were administered, there was not much of a reaction however, the doctor, after waiting a few minutes, administered more drops at which time Haines began suffering from pain, vomiting, welts, and shortness of breath. The doctor began the IV line to counteract the effects of the iodine allergy and then did not give Haines anymore iodine and never administered the CT scan. Haines was released from the hospital after a few hours and went home.
She then suffered from major headaches for a few days and noticed that when she tried to focus and use her psychic abilities, the migraines came back. Haines also suffered from welts and hives for a period of time after the incident occurred. A malpractice lawsuit was then brought against the hospital and doctor. The lawsuit was for pain and suffering as well as loss of income due to her allergic reaction to the iodine dye. There were two trials that took place for this case, the first trial awarded Haines $kick in damages and interest which was seen as an excessive amount by the Judge and Temple University Hospital.
The second trial was then granted which reversed the original decision and led to Haines receiving no award for damages. Court Cases By miniskirt previously had allergic reactions to iodine. Although the doctor administered the iodine in slow doses, she should not have given Haines any due to the fact that she was allergic. Furthermore, Dry. Hart created more negative health issues for Haines that she would not have suffered from if she did not have the allergic reaction. In the second trial, the issue was whether or not the damages awarded in the first trial were excessive.
Due to the fact that the prosecution failed to show expert testimony pertaining to the issue at hand, the amount of damages were excessive. Instead of having experts discuss the harmful effects of an allergic reaction to iodine, they had testimony from those who used Haines’ psychic abilities for personal or business reasons. “The expert witness is a powerful tool to aid the Jury in its search for the truth, and like any tool, it may be subject to misuse in the hands of the unscrupulous” (Strickland & Read, 2008, p. 82).
The laws that apply to this case are tort law in regard to medical malpractice and gelignite. In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove (I) that the defendant’s conduct falls below the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances; (ii) that the defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of the wrong done to the plaintiff; and (iii) that the plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of this wrong. (Strickland & Read, 2008, p. 70) Dry. Hart knowingly administered the iodine dye that Haines said she was allergic to, which caused Haines pain and suffering.
As a doctor, Hart should have found something else to administer the CT scan or determined another way to check Haines’ health. “Medical malpractice law is a subset of personal injury law and its practice often overlaps with litigation law. This deals with claims when medical professionals provide care, or lack thereof, that leads to damages, injury or harm” (“Medical malpractice,” 2012, Para. 1). Medical malpractice is apparent in this case as Dry. Hart clearly did not provide proper care for Mrs… Haines.
A doctor’s Job is to help patients; when a patient tells a doctor of an allergy it is their duty not to cause an allergic reaction that could hurt the patient. The case went to trial and the Jury was directed at the end of all testimony given to ignore everything except evidence related to Haines’ injuries directly following the incident, as she did not give proof the iodine was what caused her headaches and loss of income. The Jury quickly came back with a verdict of $kick in damages plus interest, which totaled $kick. The defendants, Temple University Hospital and Dry.
Hart, moved to set aside the verdict and four months later a Judge agreed stating the amount of punitive damages awarded to Haines were grossly excessive. The Judge has the power to review the award and to adjust it downward to meet the dictates of justice: high enough for the defendant to feel the sting, but not so high as to bankrupt an entire industry’ (Strickland & Read, 2008, p. 85). During the second trial, emphasis was placed on the plaintiffs psychic abilities and not on the issues pertaining to the malpractice suit. Many witnesses were called but all of them discussed the plaintiffs prior work as a psychic.