Forensic Issues

Forensic Issues
Assume that you are called upon to testify in one of the two case scenarios below on behalf
of the nurse-defendant. Outline what evidence is important to preserve, how? Why?

Forensic Issues
There are certain evidences I should preserve if I am called upon to testify on behalf of a
nurse-defendant in the case of Yolanda Pinnelas. One of the evidence I would protect is the one
indicating that the pharmacy delayed in delivering the drug on time. This evidence will be altered
with by indicating that the drug was actually delivered on time. The reason why this evidence
ought to be protected is that it is against the law to delay to deliver drugs to a patient in un-
stabilized condition (Maschi, Bradley & Ward, 2009). This provision is provided in the Patient
Care Act which indicates that license of RNs could be revoked if proves that a patient was
actually neglected.
Evidence that also requires to be preserved is the evidence that Jeffrey had neglected
Yolanda prior to his assignation. This is very critical in court of law as it suggest that there was
no close monitoring of Yolanda’s improvement during the treatment. This is against the
competency standards of any Registered Nurse (RN). This evidence can be preserved by
indicating that, the hospital being understaffed, made Jeffrey to check on other patients who were
undergoing the same treatment (Furuse, 2001). This statement will convince the judges that
Jeffrey was universal in trying to give all the patients quality services accorded to them.

Delicate evidence that need to be preserved too is the evidence that Betty, the supervisory
nurse, did not note the name of the SAFE-INFUSE or its serial number. The problem here is that
the pump was neither isolated nor sent for maintenance. If this evidence is presented in the court
of law, Betty can be sued due to incompetency. Any medical practitioner is expected to
demonstrate competency levels when dealing with patients. To preserve this evidence, it should
be indicated that the reason behind using the pump is because the other six infusion pumps were
already being used, and there was an urgent need to give Yolanda the intended services.
Doctor William Brady, if evidence is presented in court, can be fired or his license gets
revoked. This is because he used dermatome that resulted in uneven harvesting of tissue and
further scaring in Yolanda’s thigh area where the skin was harvested. This is against competency
standards that indicate that William ignore to verify whether mitomycin had actually entered
Yolanda’s body tissue and went ahead with skin grafting (Carroll & Buddenbaum, 2007). This
evidence can be preserved by indicating that Dr. William was working guided by the
documentation in the medical record that indicated that only infiltration to the IV had happened.
Amy Green, on the other hand, can be sued in court if the evidence attributed to him is
presented. The evidence is that she had opted to use floating nurses to counteract the rising
nurse-shortage shortage in the facility (Baker, 2005). I will defend Mrs. Green by providing that
the use of floating nurses is due to neglect the state government to supply hospitals with more
nurses. Therefore, Mrs. Green used floating nurses to reduce the increasing burden attributed to
the reduced number of nurses.
Having malpractice insurances can convince the judges that the negligence of the medical
officers used in treating Yolanda was because their mistakes were insured. This evidence

requires to be protected by indicating that malpractice insurance is only geared to ensure that
medical officers work professionally despite being insured. In the concerned hospital, only Betty
and William are insured (Furuse, 2001). This evidenced can be preserved by arguing that the
malpractice insurance attributed to Betty and William is because they hold very delicate position
that is frequented with unavoidable mistakes.

Baker, T. (2005). Reconsidering the Harvard Medical Practice Study conclusions about the
validity of medical malpractice claims. J Law Med Ethics.
Carroll, A.E., & Buddenbaum, J.L. (2007). Malpractice claims involving paediatricians:
epidemiology and aetiology. Paediatrics.
Furuse, A. (2001). What we must learn from recent medical accidents—experiences at the
investigation committee. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 
Kohn, L.T., Corrigan, J.M., & Donaldson, M..S. (2000). To Err Is Human: Building a Safer
Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Maschi, T., Bradley, C., & Ward, K. (2009). Forensic social work: Psychosocial and legal
issues in diverse practice settings. New York, NY: Springer Pub.
Ubelaker, D. H. (2013). Forensic science: Current issues, future directions. Chichester, West
Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.


Looking for Discount?

You'll get a high-quality service, that's for sure.

To welcome you, we give you a 20% discount on your All orders! use code - NWS20

Discount applies to orders from $30
All Rights Reserved,
Disclaimer: You will use the product (paper) for legal purposes only and you are not authorized to plagiarize. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products.