Lawnurse

lol :) The law has to try to 'accomodate' all people, including people who aren't very smart. It was only a short while into my nursing career when I realized that human beings have an infinite capacity to be stupid, and no matter what you think the absolute floor of stupidity is, some human being, somewhere, will be below that. Hence a whole lot of annoying reminders like the above example! Coincidentally, I just about to leave for my exam in Food, Drug, and Biotechnology Law (ie FDA law) which discussed exactly this sort of thing. Happy to know it actually applies to read life!

What her obligations are is the issue. If there are circumstances that void the contract, or there are circumstances under which a court is unwilling to enforce a contract, her obligations could change. I'm not saying a court would rule it inequitable (unfair), or that its even worth hiring a lawyer. I do, however, think its worth getting in the 'face' (ha) of the agency and explaining that these were extenuating circumstances, becasue perhaps the agency would lower the fine to only the amount they actually lose.

"weasal out"? Her son is recovering from EYE SURGERY. I'm sure the OP would rather her son did NOT have eye surgery so that she could easily fulfill the contract...I doubt she is celebrating the eye injury... Gosh, I brag about lacking compassion (hence the move to law), but you're really upstaging me.

I'm not saying she had no contract - exactly the opposite. Verbal contracts are nonetheless contracts. The OP is definatly bound by the contract. However, there are extenuating circumstances here, and the existance of those circumstances may affect the contract. The courts are sensitive to the "little person" when its the "little person" against the "big bad company." The OP should argue that the agency is charging her merely to be punitive (punishing), not because they actually lose money on her. The courts won't like the idea of the company punishing a worker when the reason for breaking the contract was her need to take care of her son after his emergency. Punishing a worker for just flaking out is one thing, but this is a unexpected circumstance. I'm not saying any of my ideas of for voiding the contract are good; I'm just saying there are options - not the least of which is just explaining the whole situation and asking the agency to make an exception. The fact is, charging the OP breaking the contract isn't going to perent eye accidents in the future.

And drug companies need a way to pay for it all this research. Drug companies create new drugs because they bring in money. Where else would we get new drugs if drug companies did not have an incentive to make them? BTW, although my opinion may sound biased for drug companies, I've been victim to the adverstising myself - although by proxy. I suffere from bad eczema and my boyfriend pratically begged me to try Elidel, even though the first time I asked a doctor about it she didnt' know enough about the drug and chose not to prescribe it. Finally I did ask my doctor for the Elidel prescription, partly to quiet my boyfriend about it (after lecturing him on how he was a victim of drug marketing). Literally the day I finished the giant tube of Elidel, my doctor email me to tell me about the black box warning they are adding to Elidel. Also, you have to consider that shows like GMA depend on ratings - people love to hate big drug companies, so GMA designed a study to show how very bad they are. GMA is not peer reviewed - we have no idea if they conducted a study previously that showed there was no bias, then reconstructed the "research" to show the desired result. This wouldn't be nearly such a problem if more people had Tivo. :chuckle

It's part of the Miranda rights - the stuff they have to tell you when they get arrested and taken into custody. 1. You have the right remain silent 2. Anything you say can be held against you in court 3. You have the right to the presence of an attorney 4. If you cannnot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you prior to any questioning. (from the Supremem Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966) These lawyers are called "public defenders."

Criminal court. Crimes are heard in criminal court, where all defendants are entitled to a free lawyer.

Knowing there will be some false accusations, our justice system provides every defendant a FREE lawyer. As well as the right to call witnesses to back up their own story, and the right for their own lawyer to shred to other witnesses to peices on the stand. They also have a right to have false/fake/unreliable evidence excluded at trial, as well as actual good evidence that was collected wrongly (ie the cops search something without the necesary warrent) even if it proves guilt. The defendant also has a right to another trial if procedural and reversible mistakes were made. Furthermore, the defendant has a right to sue the accuser (if the accusor know the allegations were false) in civil suit or the government for malicious prosecution. There are ALSO judicial actions against someone who knowingly brings false accusations (ie calls up the police and lies.) I'm not saying our justice system is fantastic, but it has tried to take into account that there will be false accusations. And no, these safeguards don't make it worthwhile to be accused falsely, but few juducial remedies ever make up for the crime (ie no amount of money makes it okay that your loved one was killed). Conversely, the victim doesn't get anything special in the even that the crime against them goes unreportred. In fact, they get nothing at all. For these reasons, the justice systems asks for every reasonably held belief that abuse has occured, and they take it from there.

I bet the admis. office of those schools would LOVE to tell you their rank - perhaps you could call them.

There are MANY male MDs who are OBGYNs - women docs don't dominate that specialty in medicine...should nursing be any different? IMHO, perhaps a male obgyn nurse would have a little bit of uphill battle, but if there's something admin, fellow staff, and pts love, its competence - perhaps above all other things. If you feel you have the potential to be a great obgyn nurse - please, do it!

Rocknurse, you did exactly the right thing by calling the PACU nurse (in case there was some reasonable explanation) and then writing up an incident report, esp. considering she did not take the blame for her mistake. Whether or not the incident report will truly solve the problem is not your primary concern- after all, NO good will come out of not writing one. Who knows why the PACU nurse gave such an inacuate report? There's a small chance its a sign of something really going on with the reporting nurse (cognitive deficit, "impaired nurse" syndrome, actual incompetence) which you may have shed light on. Good for you for standing up for yourself! IMHO, nurses standing up for themselves more frequently is one of the things the profession needs the MOST. :1luvu:

What is a baskethold?

anything from the ombudsman? :icon_hug:

I have, too (not in health care - in the education system). However, our justice system is set up so that 10 guilty people would go free before 1 innocent person would be convicted. Ergo, some innocent people will suffer in the process. Anyway, none of that changes the good-faith requirement for reporting suspected abuse.

No, catagorically wrong. Hearsay is used in law enforcement all the time. "Hearsay" is only banned in the actual court of law when it is used to prove the truth of a matter, and there are almost 30 exceptions to that rule (literally). The standard for nurses reporting sexual abuse is "good faith." Not reasonable suspicion, not clear and convincing evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Merely good faith. I believe this is the *lowest* requirement in all of law enforcement. If there is a lower burden, please let me know. If you report what you know, the police will conduct in investigation - not an arrest, not a prosecution, not a death sentence. The police then find out if this "hearsay" (although I think the correct term is 'report' or 'allegation') is based in fact. Only THEN will they make an arrest, indictment, etc. The investigation (and even grand jury if it comes to that) is confidential. If someone honestly (in good faith) believes that that this CNA was fired for sexually abusing a patient, and is under the belief that it has not been reported (not that you said this - i'm referring to the hypothetical) that person is passively allowing this man to go out and do this again. Does that seem like a good idea? Are you proposing that if the people directly involved don't go to the authorities, then the perpetrator should be allowed to get away with the crime?

I can't cite any particular law, but in the eyes of the courts, HIV testing is in a different realm than other medical information/testing. It is considered especially private. HIV testing is in a catagory by itself in the legal sense. Reason being the discrimination that can result in employment, getting insurance, etc. Maybe he was upset because he knew the law and was frightened that his health care provider didn't (or maybe he was in denial).

thank you for the reply - that is very interesting. Do you know who manufactures this or is it unique to your facility? other question - so a pt in 4 point restraints is restrained to a bed? How are they restrained for bathroom privileges? like I said earlier, I never saw these being used in my psych rotation.

Just like people ride grocery carts while his/her spouse takes too long reading the nutrition labels. Obviously, the equivalent weight is a more compelling argument. A linen cart could be used to carry heavy equipment when it is needed quickly and no other cart is in the immediate area. I think the true issue is that the hospital reasonably didn't forsee that an employee would have a sense of humor. And that's just so pessimistic... :chuckle ("Common practice" and forseeable are not similar concepts. The "common practice" is to use a hammer to insert a nail into a hard surface, but it is "forseeable" that it be used as a weapon. The common usage of a OxyContin is to relieve chronic pain, but it is forseeable it could be abused to get high. The common usage of a skateboard is for a person to ride it, but it is forseeable it could be used to move heavy boxes.) This is just sinking in now...the cart was made of PVC piping? They were out of tinker-toys? I've never seen a cart made out of PVC piping...it does not sound very sturdy... :uhoh21:

This is true in almost every state - but not in all - some states have doctors that lobby to keep NPs out.

You first posted saying what a problem you have with this nurse's current mode of behavior, then you wrote a long post defending her and explaining away her actions. Do you want to help her or make excuses for her?

The linen cart couldn't hold the weight of one person?I think it is foreseeable that a linen cart could be used to carry a load equal to the weight of one person. You could even argue that it was forseeable that a person would try to ride the cart. In that case, they're lucky you didn't get hurt. You wouldn't have climbed on it if you didn't in good faith believe it could hold your weight. When was the last time that cart was checked for proper function? Tell them they're lucky no one got hurt from their poor maintanence.

You're right - I was confusing that with the M.E. talking about the case. Got foiled by that at work the other day when I called an M.E. for his opinion on a case I was working on. Thanks for clearing that up.

the purpose of an autopsy is to determine the cause of death. why would they call you? they need the family's permission. Seems anything they want to know from you is evidenced in the body. were they just calling to let you know?

These things happen so often on such a small scale that its hard to quantify. Example: nurses has a pretty face and MD is naturally more drawn to make eye contact while the nurses is speaking, and pays more attention while nurse is speaking. MD has taken the time to listen to this nurse and acts on her suggestion. Pretty-face nurse is lauded for her ability to communicate with MDs and get them to listen to her. Alternate scenario: other nurse had same situation and same suggestion, but MD only pays half as much attention to other nurse because MD is not drawn to other nurse's face. MD continues to flip through chart while conversing, not to be rude intentionally, but because MD is busy, like everyone else. Because MD doens't pay as much attention, MD doesn't actually absorb what other nurse is saying, and forgets it more easily. This is a contrived example, but my point is this happens almost microscopically. Obviously, there is no beauty pagent for the position of DON...at least, not with sashes and swimsuits....

I agree w/ Pricklypear that the NA is operating under her own license, not yours, so you are not liable. And you didn't "delegate" the passing of the tray to the NA for two reasons 1) that's not a nursing duty, any unlicensed person can do it 2) you can't "delegate in the negative." You can't delegate for someone *not* to do something. IMHO, the person at fault is the *patient.* Unless there is a reasonable explaination for why she took the tray (she dementia, alzheimer's, language barrier), and/or unless she honestly believed that the reason the NA gave her the tray was because the NPO/BDM status suddenly no longer applied, it was her doing. But that was her right as a patient. She is not required to do anything she is told to do by a nurse/MD/other staff, and she is not required to NOT do anything she is told not to do. I don't see why *you* get blamed for the patient asserting her legal right. As long as you made it clear to her that the NPO status was *for the purpose of surgery,* she knowingly took action to delay her surgery - which is her legal right. If your patient was a competent adult, your facility should treat her like one. Oh, wait, I remember...because nurses take the blame for EVERYTHING. :angryfire - Lawnurse (doing my small part by defending this rediculous "legal fiction" whenever I can.) :uhoh21: