Introduction
Nurses in New Carolina (NC) can face legal charges even when they follow doctor’s orders which may cause harm to a patient. An August 2022 NC Supreme Court ruling invalidated the precedent that protected nurses from being sued when they followed a physician’s directive (Falcone, 2022). The case involved a three-year-old minor named Amaya Gullatte, who suffered from cardiac arrest and permanent anoxic brain damage, which includes cerebral palsy, in the hands of a nursing team guided by a doctor (Falcone, 2022). Gus VanSoestbergen, the nurse, had given sevoflurane by a mask that made Gullatte develop immediate cardiac arrest (Falcone, 2022). The mother sued the healthcare firm, Dr James Doyle and VanSoestbergen.
The trial lasted for three months, and it ended in Dr. Doyle settling with the family while favouring VanSoestbergen and the healthcare institution. The ruling was based on a 1932 case Bryd v. Marion General Hospital (Falcone, 2022). The 90-year-old law held that nurses could not be liable of any clinical outcome if they followed the doctor’s instructions. The case was taken to the NC Supreme Court, which overruled Byrd because the medical profession had evolved due to increased specialization and independence of clinical care officers. Hence, it is legally correct to create liability without causation (Falcone, 2022). That means the nurse was held liable for Gullatte’s suffering, therefore, losing the case.
The Due Process Represented by the Case
The legal proceedings in the case described above represent a substantive due process. In the process, the question is whether the court’s ruling in favor of the nurse and against the doctor can be justified by a sufficient purpose. In this aspect, there is the liberty of the government to regulate particular legal precedents based on the patient’s fundamental rights (Gostin et al., 2019). It is important to consider that Gullatte had been subjected to permanent health deformities meaning that it was required to substantiate or declassify the initial court ruling. Since the patient was in significant harm, it is assumed that the nurse should have a logical assessment.
The Demonstration of the Case
The case demonstrates arbitrary and capricious action because unreasonable and willful action lacked consideration. The ruling translates that VanSoestbergen should have been critical enough to undertake an action free from any liability, either of the doctor or the nurse (Law et al., 2018). The case also demonstrates vicarious liability since the doctor is liable for the tort committed by the nurse, which renders the hospital in the scope of unlawful action. The case does not have justifiable grounds on academic deference because there is no certain invasion of law claims that contradict empirical precedents in legal training.
Salient Aspects
In this suit, the other salient aspects include what the ruling means to the nurses. The decision negatively impacts nurses since most may be short-staffed and face violence in their line of duty and intimidation by their supervisor physicians. That means there is a burden that may lead to errors in clinical provision hence, subjecting nurses to criminal occasions (Law et al., 2018). The other salient factor is the issue of liability without causation that changes the standard to which care may be applied to a patient. A nurse may have specialized or skilled in a particular health situation but fear taking action due to the existing ruling against their clinical immunity.
Strategies for Preventing Future Litigation
- A nurse should review their nursing practice acts depending on their state.
- There should be regular education opportunities for nurses and doctors in NC and other states to be informed of recent updates regarding their duties (Gostin et al., 2019).
- Courts in the US should allow various discretions based on competencies by not compromising already existing precedents without caution.
- Proactive professional education in nursing should be broad to allow nurses and doctors to understand the legal metrics that may hold them liable for clinical liabilities (Gostin et al., 2019).
References
Falcone, S. (2022). Nurses can be sued for following doctor’s orders, NC Court rules. Nurse.org.
Gostin, L. O., Monahan, J. T., Kaldor, J., DeBartolo, M., Friedman, E. A., Gottschalk, K., Kim, S. C., Alwan, A., Binagwaho, A., Burch, G. L., Cabal, L., DeLand, K., Evans, T. G., Goosby, E., Hossain, S., Koh, H., Ooms, G., Roses Periago, M., Uprimny, R., & Yamin, A. E. (2019). The Legal Determinants of Health: Harnessing the power of Law for Global Health and Sustainable Development. The Lancet, 393(10183), 1857–1910. Web.
Law, A. C., Stevens, J. P., Hohmann, S., & Walkey, A. J. (2018). Patient outcomes after the introduction of statewide ICU nurse staffing regulations*. Critical Care Medicine, 46(10), 1563–1569.