Medical Malpractice case study

Order Description
case study on this court decision including outline:
https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_50309.htm

For the medical malpractice case study, you will prepare a paper discussing a medical malpractice case using the IRAC (issue, rule, analysis, conclusion) formula. You will discuss any relevant ethical theories involved and analyze the outcome, applying legal concepts from the course.

Part I: Introduction In this part, describe your case, including the parties, the facts, and the claims asserted.

? Part II: Analysis This part is your analysis and should make up the majority of your paper. This section should be written in the IRAC format. Click here for a description of the IRAC model. Your analysis should discuss the evidence on both sides of the case and the defenses asserted by the defendant healthcare provider. This section should also identify and analyze the ethical theories involved and how they did or did not impact the decision.

? Part III: Variation In this part, discuss how and why the outcome would have changed if the facts or evidence had been different. For example, if the plaintiff won the case, discuss a defense that, if available to the defendant, would have changed the outcome (for example, if the defendant could prove the plaintiff filed his claim after the statute of limitations had expired).

Outline:

Part I: Introduction
Parties
Facts
Claims

Part II: Analysis
Issue
Rule
Analysis
Evidence
Defenses
Ethical Issues
Conclusion

Part III: Variation
Analysis of Hypothetical

IRAC

What is IRAC?
? Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion
? A method for organizing legal analysis so the reader can follow your argument to its conclusion

How do I use IRAC?
As an example, we will look at whether someone can sue for battery as a result of inhaling second-hand smoke. The issue we will look at is whether there is contact with another person, which is required for a battery claim.

Issue
First state the question you are trying to answer (what brought the parties into court). This can be in the form of a question or a statement. For example:
o ?There is an issue as to whether contact occurred when the plaintiff inhaled the second-hand smoke.?
o ?Does contact occur when one inhales second-hand smoke created by another??

Rule
State the rule of law or legal principle. This may require stating the elements to establish a claim.
o ?To prove a case for battery the plaintiff must establish the following elements: an act, intent, contact, causation, and harm.?
o ?The offense of battery requires contact with the plaintiff?s person.?

Analysis
This is where you discuss the facts, apply them to the law and explain how you will arrive at your conclusion. You may cite other cases, discuss policy implications, and discuss cases that run counter to your conclusion. If you are analyzing a case that has already been decided by the court, discuss how the court arrived at its decision, balancing arguments from both sides.
You can use other cases, analogizing and distinguishing, and policy (for example, the goals of tort law) to work your way to a conclusion. For example:
o ?In Howe v. Ahn, the court held that noxious bus fumes inhaled by a passerby constitute harmful and offensive contact. Although the court has not extended this holding to a case involving second-hand smoke, numerous cases have likened second-hand smoke to air pollution (for example, Fox v. Abernathy). Policy considerations also favor finding contact in the present case. If one can prove harm as a result of inhaling second-hand smoke, it is better for the smoker to compensate the victim than burden the state.?

Conclusion
State the outcome of your analysis. This can be a prediction of how the court may rule or a statement of the court?s decision.
o ?The court is likely to find that harmful contact occurs when a smoker releases second-hand smoke into the air and that air is inhaled by a bystander.?

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!