From: Ashlee Nong
HCA 340
To: Professor Schipske
06 October 2017
Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging Ltd.,
Supreme Court of Arizona
70 P.3d 435, 2003
1. The complete title and citation of the case:
Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging Ltd., 70 P. 3d 435 (2003).
2. Explain which court decided this case:
Supreme Court of Arizona decided this case. The Court of Appeals maintained the trial judge's decisions, yet the Supreme Court concurred with Duncan that the Medical Malpractice Act arrangement which bars misbehavior claims in view of battery abuses the Arizona Constitution's assurance for the privilege to sue.
3. How did the case get to the court? Discuss the procedural history of the case
The case was brought to court by a woman name Martha Duncan. She sued SMI for lack of informed consent, medical malpractice, and battery. After the court trial date was set, Duncan dropped the two claims: medical malpractice, and lack of informed consent. Plaintiff then moved to summary judgment and question if the court can proceed the case with the remaining battery claim falls within the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA). Since Duncan did not have a testimony for the claim she asserted, the trial court declined her case as the testimony was crucial to plaintiff’s claim.
4. What legal issues were decided by the Court in this case?
The legal issues were decided by the court in this case were one, whether a drug injection against a patient’s will considers a battery and, two, whether it goes against the Ariozna constitution as a repeal of a patient’s right to collect for personal damages through common law.
5. Discuss the facts of the case. (Who are the parties? What happened?)
The parties are Martha Duncan- plaintiff, against Scottsdale Medical Imaging (SMI)- defendant. On the day of her MRI procedure, June 19, 1998, Ms. Duncan presented herself at Scottsdale Medical Imaging where she underwent an MRI examination. Ms. Duncan requested sedative for her back condition in order to undergo an MRI examination. As Ms. Duncan mentioned prior to her visits at the facility that she only accepts demerol or morphine as the sedation for her procedure. She was assured by a nurse over the phone that she will only be administered by the two drugs mentioned above for her procedure. However, she was administered with fentanyl in lieu of demerol or morphine as she demanded by Nurse Gary Fink, despite the facts that Duncan repeated herself three times that if it is not demerol or morphine then she would have to reschedule her MRI appointment. The administration of fentanyl causes severe allergic reactions to Duncan.
6. What did the Court decide? Give its holding (decision) and the reasons it gave for the decision (reasoning)?
As the court found SMI is not responsible for Nurse Fink’s action. Though plaintiff stated a claim for battery but she did agree to the procedure through informed of consent. The court ruled in favor of SMI although plaintiff was being lied to about the drug she was administered with. The court decided to “vacate the court of appeals’ memorandum decision, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (Duncan v. Scottsdale, 2003)
7. Was the decision unanimous? If not, who dissented and why did they dissent?
The decision was unanimous and court decided to send the case back to lower trial court for further reviews. SMI was clear of any battery or medical malpractice and was granted permission to continue practice medicine.
8. Why is this case important for health care administration?
This case is important for health care administration because it has given the heath care system a better view on informed consent to what it is limited to and how negligence affects a health care procedure. It has done its job to review the informed consent terms before giving them out for patients to sign, and it has given the health care administration the transparency needed with each and every procedure performs on a patient. This case restored the patient’s right to sue for battery.
9. What do you think about the decision?
I think that the decision is reasonable as Duncan has signed on the consent paper so technically SMI did not perform any procedure without plaintiff’s consent and that SMI should not be held accountable for negligence.
References
Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging Ltd. (n.d.). Caselaw.findlaw Website. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1183120.html.
Alpers, R. Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd.: Restoring a patient’s right to sue for battery. (n.d.). Arizona Law Review Website. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from http://arizonalawreview.org/pdf/46-4/46arizlrev843.