M. Bega Pursue Court Case Study

Case Citation: Gallagher v. Cayuga Medical Center 151 AD 3d 1349 - NY: Appellate Div., 3rd Dept. 2017 Background: In this civil case Timothy W. Gallagher is the appellant, and Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) is the respondents. The case took place in the appellate division of the supreme court of New York, division three. The plaintiff’s complaint was that Cayuga Medical Center had asserted medical malpractice, negligence, wrongful death and emotional distressed.

when Sue Sylvester learned that Mr. shuester had killed Titan she was very upset at losing her companion Ms. Sylvester has come to our office to ask if she can sue Mr. Schuester over the death of her beloved Titan I am considering filing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Please review the attached case, Ammon v. Welty, 113 S.W.3d 185 (Ky. App. 2002), assume it states the current law on the topic, and write an analysis of whether Mr. Schuester’s conduct meets the “intent” element of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional

This case all began when one man was accused of stealing a mailbox. It all started on June 29, 2013 when Gerard Puana was arrested and charged with a felony for allegedly stealing Chief Louis Kealoha and his wife Katherine Kealoha. Katherine is deputy prosecutor. Katherine is Puana’s niece. On June 22, 2014 at 1:30 P.M.

Because of this, the defendant argued that the government’s use of demonstrative evidence was prejudicial and that his conviction violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause because if he wasn’t “Indian”, he would have been subjected to a minor and less harsh of a penalty under

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Under Alabama’s burglary statute, does a former occupant of an apartment who partially moved out four to five days before committing a felony in the apartment and who has a estranged relationship with the occupant have an absolute right to enter? BRIEF ANSWER 1. Probably not. A person has an absolute right to enter as long as he remains an occupant of the apartment, ownership is irrelevant, and an estranged marital relationship is not sufficient.

Id. at 22. Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Neven, Nash, and Cox, who is not a named defendant, were “deliberate [sic] indifferent to the Plaintiff’s personal safety by their failure” to create adequate procedures for handling “PREA cases” (Prison Rape Elimination Act). Id. at

. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence a mental health expert in a criminal trial can not offer an opinion on the ultimate legal issue of whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. (704(a)). However, in a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.(704(b)).

There is also an inclination to believe that if he had not suffered from this state, then the offence would not have been committed, specially not in the barbaric way it was done. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the accused willfully preformed the act, nor that the mens rea and the actus reus coincided while he was not in a psychotic state. (Roach, 113) Related to this finding is another element that supports the verdict of the Honorable Judge, which is the Principle of Fundamental Justice that states that no one should be “punished for morally involuntary actions.” (Roach, 82) A person who successfully raises the mental disorder defence is considered to be morally innocent of the act because they were not acting freely, in this case, free from psychotic ideations.

By these actions, Alex Billings suffered emotional distress, and required treatment. The defendant deprecated Alex over text messages on his fashion, facial features, and actions, even after Billings told him to stop (38). The fact that Pearson continued to harass Billings, is a clear sign of intentional distress Pearson must have been angry towards Alex Billings, still irritated at the situation with the counselor. Therefore Pearson continued to harass Billings. Without texting, many of his snide comments would not have reached Billings.

Justice Labarga graduated from Forest Hill high school in West Palm Beach in 1972. “Labarga earned both his undergraduate and J.D from the University of Florida in 1976, and 1979 respectively” ("Justices of the Florida Supreme Court - Justice Labarga," n.d.). After, Labarga finished law school, he then became an Assistant Public Defender.

The court found the “Defendant's care of Claimant fell below acceptable standards of practice” (Stashenko, 2015). In 2009 a former inmate of the Hawaii corrections department was awarded close to $1 million in damages for an incident in 2003, in which the physician’s failure to give the correct type and dosage of antibiotic for an infection in his scrotum. This resulted in 6 subsequent surgeries and the removal of his scrotum, rendering him

Finally, in the fifth count of her complaint, Ellina states a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). “[T]o impose liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress: (1) The conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) The conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; (4) The emotional distress must be severe.” Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560, 566 (1977). Critically, the intent requirement of the tort requires the tortfeasor to have acted intentionally or recklessly. Indeed, in her complaint, Ellina alleges that Gil “intentionally and/or recklessly engaged in conduct . . .”

This patient was not treated with the ethical respectany patient should receive when seeking help/treatment. It is very alarming that a physician whose job is to take care of other humans would disregard giving a proper

The case I will be concentrating on is Tomcik vs. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction in which Tomcik was imprisoned under the custody of Department of Rehabilitation and correction, based on the Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals book. The problem stimulated from continuous negligence from nurses and doctors at the department, which initially was when Tomcik received a physical evaluation, included the breast examination by Dr. Evans who stated that the examination was cursory and lasted only a few seconds, which means that not much attention was presented regarding the patient and his job. The next day Tomcik noticed a lump as being about the size of a pea in her right breast, however it was not reported by Dr. Evans.

Using testimony about a “syndrome” to explain what a reasonable person would do is a contradiction in terms—it is a legal fiction that the legal community has developed to allow experts to testify in trials of battered women. Such an expert testimony might actually prevent the unjust result of sending a victim to prison for acting out of necessity, but doesn’t require changing the actual substantive self-defense laws. This use of expert testimony to explain reasonableness, though logically baffling, is the only realistic option for introduction of evidence of battering under the current evidentiary laws. The ability to present expert testimony at trial for a battered woman who has