Organizational Liability and Individual Privacy

Organizational Liability and Individual Privacy
Student Name
Department, University
Course Code: Course Name
Professor
Date
Organizational Liability and Individual Privacy
Introduction
Medical errors constitute a major mortality cause in the United States. A medical mistake is an unintended act of commission or omission or one which does not attain the anticipated outcomes, the failure of the anticipated action to the executed as purposed, or the deviation from the care process that could or could not happen at the system or individual level (Makary & Daniel, 2016). Medical errors could imply that the physicians delivered substandard care, thus providing a basis for the client to sue them for compensation. This report analyzes the details of the Capazzola case, the court’s decision regarding the liability of the parties to the case, the rationale for finding the hospital partially liable, and feasible approaches to mitigate future medical errors and hospital liability.
What are the Details of the Case Described by Capazzola?
The Capazzola (2016) case involves a 51-year-old man who filed a medical malpractice legal suit against the hospitals, citing substandard care, which led to his permanent disability. The man had sought treatment from the hospital to have his heart valve replaced through cardiac bypass surgery. During the surgery, the man developed ventricular fibrillation that needed immediate resuscitation, prompting the surgeon to recommend the administration of lidocaine as well as 150 mg of amiodarone. Unfortunately, the hospital’s pharmacy had mislabeled the drug. As a result, the anesthesiologist administered 2,700 mg of amiodarone to the ailing man without cross-checking the dosage. Although the man’s heart stabilized and the surgeon successfully completed the operation, the amiodarone overdose caused the patient to suffer subsequent ventricular fibrillation, which made him lose his ability to perform activities of daily living, in need of constant medical attention for the rest of his lifetime, and his brain permanently injured. As a result, the man sued the hospital for a medication error in its pharmacy, the anesthesiologist for administering incorrect medication dosage, and the healthcare provider for its employee’s (anesthesiologist) medication error (Capazzola, 2016).
What was the Decision of Liability Made by the Court?
Although all the parties to the case denied liability in the man’s permanent brain injury, the hospital admitted that its health information system failure led to the drug mix-up in the pharmacy, while the anesthesiologist admitted to a mistake in the medication administration. All the parties held that the amiodarone overdoes could be attributed to the patient’s brain damage and loss of functional abilities. The court agreed to the man’s allegations and ruled that he be compensated an amount totaling $12.2 million in damages. This implied that $6.4 million of the total amount was covered for economic damages related to health expenses, loss of wages, and ability to earn income, while the rest ($5.8 million) was awarded for pain and suffering inflicted. Although the court held the three parties responsible for the man’s disability, it noted that the hospital was 60 percent liable, the anesthesiologist 25 percent liable, while the healthcare provider in which the anesthesiologist worked was 15 percent liable. In case the other parties were unable to pay the man, the court held the specified healthcare provider, its anesthesiologist, and the hospital liable for $12.2 million in total (Capazzola, 2016).
Why the Hospital was found Partially Liable?
The legal basis for holding the hospital partially liable for the patient’s damage can be explained by critically appraising the case in regard to forms of organizational liability in the United States (U.S.). Predominantly, the rationale for this decision is premised on the legal liability of the hospital for the patient’s injury depending on the respondeat superior doctrine and the hospital’s negligence itself. The former liability form originates from organizational negligence in the retention or selection of incompetent personnel or the failure to exercise the right degree of care within the grounds and buildings’ maintenance. In this vein, the compliance-based approa...