Appellate Opinion Research Project Essay Sample

IntroductionIn this state. it is estimated that more than 1 billion venipunctures or blood drawings are performed by phlebotomists each twelvemonth. Harmonizing to Ogden-Grable ( 2005 ) . phlebotomy mistakes can do serious injury to patients ; up to and including decease.

either straight or indirectly. Therefore it is critical to set up. implement. and pattern quality control which can assist in forestalling the figure of mistakes made in this country of clinical service. I conducted my research on the Maryland province appellate instance between the Board of Trustees. Community College of Baltimore County and Patient First Corporation.
The Court of Particular Entreaties of Maryland reviewed the instance on August 29. 2014 which involved a pupil phlebotomist’s carelessness during a everyday blood drawing of a six twelvemonth old kid.

Bing that I am a female parent of two immature kids. this instance truly hit place for me because every twelvemonth I take them for one-year check-ups. inoculations. and blood work. It truly opened my eyes to see some of the possible hazards that can originate during a simple blood drawing. Our Pediatrician frequently utilizes pupils from local colleges and universities to help her with patients both independently or with limited supervising. The healthcare field requires hands-on experience.

but it should be carefully monitored to forestall accidents.The attention of kids should ne’er be put in hazard due to negligence or miss of decently trained healthcare workers. The appellant instance between Patient First Corporation ( “Patient First” ) and the Board of Trustees of the Community College of Baltimore County ( “CCBC” ) involved an understanding in which Patient First allowed CCBC venipuncture pupils to work at Patient First centres in the Baltimore country in order to derive “supervised clinical experience. ” The understanding between the parties was drafted by CCBC and contained a subdivision entitled “Indemnification. ” which stated that CCBC would indemnify Patient First for any liability originating from negligent Acts of the Apostless of CCBC pupils. The pertinent portion of the Agreement is as follows:7. 1 [ CCBC ] will support.

indemnify. and hold [ Patient First ] harmless from any and all losingss. claims. liabilities. amendss. costs and disbursals ( including sensible attorneys’ fees ) which arise out of the negligent Acts of the Apostless or skips of [ CCBC ] .

its agents. employees. or Venipuncture Students in connexion with this Agreement. . .

. The duties of [ CCBC ] under this subparagraph 7. 1 are capable to and limited by its liability under Section 5-301 et [ s ] combining weight. [ a ] nd 5-519. Courts and Judicial Proceedings. Annotated Code of Maryland. as amended.

It is farther understood and agreed that [ CCBC ] is non relinquishing or releasing in any mode any defences that may be available to [ CCBC ] including. but non limited to. authorities crowned headunsusceptibility or breach of contract or otherwise.

nor is [ CCBC ]releasing any defences that may go available to it at any clip during the term of this Agreement. but that [ CCBC ] is free to asseverate all defences that may be available to it at jurisprudence or in equity.

Harmonizing to the Merriam-Webster lexicon.

indemnify is to protect person by assuring to pay for the cost of possible future harm. loss or hurt. The footings of the understanding held CCBC financially responsible for any negligent actions of their venipuncture pupils and required them to indemnify or reimburse Patient First for any disbursals incurred as a consequence of claims. amendss.

losingss. and or hurt caused by their pupils. BackgroundOn January 13. 2007.

a CCBC pupil phlebotomist working at a Patient First clinic accidently stuck herself with a acerate leaf and so proceeded to retreat blood from a six twelvemonth old kid utilizing the same contaminated needle exposing the kid to unknown possible diseases. The pupil phlebotomist subsequently tested positive for the disease Hepatitis C. Subsequently the kid was tested for a whole twelvemonth and fortuitously ne’er tested positive for the extremely contagious disease. As a consequence of the student’s negligent actions.

on December 14. 2009. the child’s female parent filed a case against Patient First. Patient First affiliates.

and the pupil phlebotomist. The ailment specifically asserted that the pupil “acted as an existent and/or evident agent. retainer. and employee of Patient First. It farther stated that the suspects. including both Patient First and the pupil. owed a responsibility of attention.

which included “the public presentation of a simple blood draw without hurt and protection of the complainant from contaminated needles” ( Graham. 2014 ) .On March 16.

2011. the parties’ settled on an understanding. in which Patient First agreed to pay $ 10.

000 toward the $ 50. 000 requested in the case. In conformity with the Agreement. Patient First demanded CCBC to indemnify them for the student’s negligent actions. CCBC refused Patient First’s petition for damages which resulted in Patient First registering suit against them for breach of contract. Patient First’s case petitioned the tribunal for CCBC to reimburse them in the sum of $ 88. 937.

39 in amendss dwelling of the $ 10. 000 colony payment and $ 78. 937. 39 in costs and attorneys’ fees. In CCBC’s reply to the ailment.

CCBC admitted that the pupil was negligent but asserted that “the contract does non indemnify ( Patient First ) against its ain negligence” and “to construe the contract to indemnify ( Patient First ) for its ain carelessness would go against public policy ( Graham. 2014 ) . ”CCBC’s place was that the Agreement stated that the pupils would work as phlebotomists under “supervised clinical experience” and that Patient First failed to supply equal supervising to the pupil who was found negligent. After hearing testimony from both parties’ . the circuit tribunal determined that the experts who offered sentiments about the Patient First clinic all had mistily different positions of what supervising was required of the phlebotomy pupils. The lower tribunal agreed with Patient First in happening that in order to find whether Patient First breached the appropriate criterion of attention. “some expertise” was required because it was non evident in the Agreement.

Because the tribunal did non cognize the applicable criterion of attention it could non “independently find whether Patient First breached it. ” Therefore the lower tribunal concluded that liability was established based upon the breach by the pupil herself but questioned whether the grounds presented was sufficient plenty to demo breach by Patient First. Consequently. the circuit tribunal awarded Patient First $ 87. 097. 08 in amendss which included $ 10. 000 paid in the colony and $ 77.

097. 08 for attorneys’ fees and costs. IssuesCCBC disagreed with the lower court’s opinion and filed an entreaty to hold the instance farther reviewed. In the appellant instance. the Court of Particular Entreaties of Maryland was asked to find two issues ( 1 ) whether the circuit tribunal erred in happening that the damages proviso of an understanding required CCBC to indemnify Patient First for its defence of the carelessness action ; and ( 2 ) whether the circuit tribunal abused its discretion in leting testimony sing the rationality of Patient First’s attorneys’ fees. and in presenting attorneys’ fees based on that testimony. After reexamining the record. the Honest Judge Kathryn Grill Graef affirmed the determination of the lower tribunal in favour of the appellee.

Patient First.In analysing the first issue. the appellant tribunal was asked to set up whether the circuit tribunal did do a error in finding that the damages proviso of the Agreement required CCBC to indemnify Patient First for defence of its ain carelessness. CCBC asserted that Patient First could merely retrieve losingss for its ain carelessness if the Agreement clearly stated it in which their understanding did non. By and large when there is an absence of beyond doubt linguistic communication. there is a given against damages for a service provider’s ain carelessness.

Patient First contended that the circuit tribunal ruled in their favour for two really of import grounds. First they believed in order to find if the issue of whether the given against damages applied. CCBC had to first turn out Patient First was so negligent. Second even if CCBC did turn out that Patient foremost was negligent the linguistic communication used in the Agreement was sufficient to demo that it applied merely to the provider’s or CCBC’s ain carelessness.CCBC ne’er disputed that the pupil phlebotomist was negligent and under the apparent linguistic communication of the Agreement. CCBC would be required to indemnify Patient First for the student’s carelessness.

However. CCBC argued that there is an exclusion to this demand due to its averment that Patient First was negligent in its supervising of the pupil and the general regulation is “contracts will non be construed to indemnify a individual against his ain carelessness unless an purpose so to make is expressed in those very words or in other univocal terms” ( Kreter v. Healthstar. Inc. . 172 Md.

App. 243. 254 ( 2007 ) ) .

However. the contract did non incorporate linguistic communication that CCBC would indemnify Patient First for its ain carelessness therefore the tribunal must farther find if Patient First was in fact negligent and who had the load to turn out the carelessness or deficiency of carelessness thereof. Because there does non look to be a Maryland instance straight turn toing this issue. other tribunals have and hold that the party seeking to deny payments on the land that the indemnitee or Patient First was negligent.

the indemnitor or CCBC must be able to turn out the affirmatory defence.The appellant tribunal agreed with this analysis and upheld that CCBC. the indemnitor. seeking to avoid payment under an insurance understanding. has the load to turn out that Patient First. the indemnitee’s carelessness. Consequently the circuit tribunal focused on whether CCBC established that Patient First was in fact negligent.

The tribunal found that CCBC failed to demo that Patient First was negligent and that there was non a meeting of the heads sing the supervising demand. “CCBC’s argument… . is that there was a failure to supervise… . and for me to so calculate out what is the criterion of attention in that context and whether it was breached…requires something other than single people’s sentiments on what it should be… . It required some expertness because its non something that’s apparent on its face… . . I don’t cognize what the criterion is and. therefore.

I can’t independently determine whether Patient First breached it” ( Graham. 2014 ) .In general. adept testimony is required to set up a professional criterion of attention for a carelessness claim. unless carelessness is evidently proven. Harmonizing to one instance survey.

the party avering carelessness. “bears the load of get the better ofing the given that due accomplishment and attention were used” ( Crockett v Crother. 264 Md. 222. 224 ( 1972 ) ) . Without a jury happening Patient First negligent. or any other grounds of Patient First’s carelessness.

the circuit tribunal decently found that CCBC was required to indemnify Patient First for its losingss. The following issue the tribunal reviewed asked the undermentioned inquiry “Did the circuit tribunal abuse its discretion in leting testimony sing the rationality of Patient First’s attorneys’ fees. and in presenting attorneys’ fees based on the testimony? ” As a regulation when there is an award of attorneys’ fees. the losing party has a right to hold that sum of fees and disbursals proven with confidence and under criterions usually applicable for cogent evidence of contractual amendss.CCBC contended that the circuit tribunal abused its discretion in leting Mr. McCoy.

Patient First’ Counsel to attest about the rationality of the Hancock firm’s fees and it erred in presenting $ 77. 097. 08 in attorneys’ fees based on lacking testimony. CCBC asserted that Mr.

McCoy was non identified nor qualified as an expert. but the tribunal allowed him to show an sentiment as to whether the measure was sensible. CCBC alleged that Mr. McCoy’s testimony was deficient to turn out that Patient First was entitled to attorneys’ fees where there was no testimony sing the rationality of the rates charged or the work done. Harmonizing to the field linguistic communication of the Agreement. Patient First was so entitled to indemnification for its attorneys’ fees. The damages linguistic communication contained in Paragraph 7.

1 of the Agreement expressly provided that CCBC “will defend. indemnify. and hold [ Patient First ] harmless from any and all losingss. claims. liabilities. amendss.

costs. and disbursals ( including sensible attorneys’’ fees ) ” for claims that arise out of carelessness of a CCBC pupil ( Graham. 2014 ) .However. Patient First believed that Mr. McCoy was in deed competent to attest to the rationality of the fees and that the test tribunal did non do a misjudgment in presenting them attorneys’ fees. In fact. Patient First contended that they provided sufficient testimony every bit good as certification for the tribunal to measure the rationality of the fees.

Consequently. the party seeking fees bears the load to supply the grounds necessary for the fact finder to measure to make up one’s mind the rationality of the fees requested. In add-on. a circuit court’s finding sing the rationality of attorneys’ fees is a factual finding within the sound discretion of the tribunal and will non be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. Patient First provided elaborate charge statements from the Hancock Firm that was admitted into grounds.

The statements provided a dislocation of the charges incurred in reacting to the case.The listing included the day of the month. the sum of clip. the lawyer. the attorney’s rate.

and a description of the undertaking for each undertaking completed in connexion with the case. Additionally Mr. McCoy testified in his experience as General Counsel for Patient First that the fees charged were sensible. Consequently the appellant tribunal upheld the lower court’s opinion and found there was no maltreatment of discretion in the circuit tribunals findings that Patient First attorneys’ fees were sensible and the tribunal did non mistake in presenting these fees as amendss against CCBC. Relative Course AimsThere are two class aims that relate to the inside informations of the appellant instance. Course nonsubjective six recognizes the different types of governments and identifies state of affairss in which a principal will be bound by the Acts of the Apostless of its agent.

During this class we learned about the bureau relationship which involves the principal. agent. and 3rd party. An agent’s ability to transact concern for a chief depends on the range of authorization given to him/her. This can be determined orally or by written consent of the principal.

the principal’s behavior. or by the concern for which the agent is employed. An agent can possess assorted types of authorization such as existent. implied. evident. or necessity ( exigency ) authorization. In associating the appellate instance to the class aim.

the ailment filed by the child’s female parent asserted that the phlebotomist “acted as an existent and or evident agent. retainer and employer of” Patient First ( CCBC v Patient First ) .This allowed the complainant or female parent to take legal action against the principal or Patient First and the agent or pupil phlebotomist.

In evident authorization a principal can be bound by the unauthorised Acts of the Apostless of its agent if the agent appears to hold authorization to move. This arises when the principal creates an visual aspect of authorization in an agent that leads a 3rd party to reasonably conclude that the agent has the authorization to execute certain Acts of the Apostless for the principal. Apparent authorization can non be created by an agent. but can merely be when the chief Acts of the Apostless so as to take a reasonably prudent 3rd party to believe that the agent has certain authorization. The 3rd party in this instance was the female parent who believed that the pupil had been given existent and or evident authorization to move on behalf of Patient First.Another class nonsubjective relation to the instance is class nonsubjective 10 which identifies whether a contract has been breached.

and what redresss are available to both the marketer and purchaser for a breach of contract. Harmonizing to Wikipedia. breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a binding understanding or bargained-for exchange is non honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or intervention with the other party’s public presentation. After the circuit tribunal heard the instance. it determined that CCBC did transgress the contract when they failed to indemnify Patient First for its losingss and awarded Patient First a judgement in the sum of $ 87. 097.

08. When a contract has been breached both parties have the right to take legal action in supporting its actions to extenuate and or retrieve its losingss.DecisionIn decision I agree with the appellate court’s determination to confirm the lower court’s opinion in favour of Patient First. CCBC’s statement was that the pupil was negligent because Patient First failed to supply equal supervising and hence they were non apt to Patient First as a consequence of their ain carelessness.

However. CCBC in avoiding to indemnify Patient First held the load of turn outing Patient First was negligent. CCBC who drafted the Agreement.

could hold clearly stated what their criterions for “clinical supervision” entailed. The tribunal could merely govern based on its reading of the contractual footings and conditions which obviously stated that CCBC would be required to indemnify Patient First for any losingss. claims. liabilities. amendss.

costs. and disbursals incurred. including attorneys’ fees as consequence of negligent Acts of the Apostless of their pupils. The contract failed to hold a common purpose or a meeting of the heads which doubtless expressed Patient First’s duties in oversing CCBC’s pupils.
This made it really hard for CCBC to carry or turn out to both tribunals that Patient First was really the negligent party. I spoke personally with Jhanelle Graham. who authored the sentiment for the instance and she expressed how tribunals will construe a contract precisely as it is written and will give the benefit of the uncertainty to the writer of the contract. In this instance it was CCBC and because they failed to clearly pass on the footings and conditions of the contract to include what their definition of clinical supervising implied.

If CCBC was able to turn out that Patient First was so negligent. there would hold been a different result all together.Because this is a recent appellate instance. there are no known public policy issues that have come about therefore far ; nevertheless the province of Maryland has a responsibility to protect the wellness of its citizens. and a criterion of attention should be established and followed when utilizing inexperienced healthcare workers. Obtaining on custodies experience in clinical service is imperative but should be closely monitored to forestall accidents and or carelessness from predominating. It is so of import that when outlining a contractual understanding that both parties make their footings as crystal clear and concrete as possible.

This will salvage both parties wasted clip. money. and resources in supporting a breach of contract or other contractual issues.MentionsBoard of Trustees Community College of Baltimore County v. Patient First. Md.

568 ( 2014 ) Crockett V Crother. 264 Md. 222. 224 ( 1972 )Graham.

J. A. ( 2014. September ) . Maryland Court of Particular Entreaties Affirms Lower Court’s Finding that Indemnification Provision Applied to Negligent Venipuncture of Phlebotomy Student. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. martindale.

com/appellate-practice-law King. D. B.

& A ; Ritterskamp. J. J.

( 1998 ) . Buying Manager’s Desk Book of Purchasing Law. New York. New york: Aspen Publishers.
Kreter v. Healthstar.

Inc. . 172 Md. App. 243.

254 ( 2007 )Norddeutscher Lloyd V Jones Stevedoring Co. 490 F 2d 648. 649 ( 1973 ) Ogden-Grable. H. ( 2005 ) . Phlebotomy Puncture Juncture: Preventing Phlebotomy errors- Potential For Harming Your Patients.

Laboratory Medicine ( p 430-433 ) .