Title: Usmle Step 1 MCQ’s # 42
Subject: Behavioral Science
Q NO 42: While driving home at the end of an evening on call, a second year resident encounters an automobile accident. She decides to stop and render whatever aid she can. The accident involves two cars. In the first car, the driver was cushioned by an airbag and suffered only minor bruises and abrasions. In the second car, the driver was thrown against the steering wheel and against the wind shield, causing severe thoracic and closed head trauma. Fearing a fire, the resident pulls the driver out of the second car, and proceeds to do what she canto stop the loss of blood. In spite of her best efforts, the second driver dies. Subsequent autopsy determines that moving the driver from the car exacerbated a spinal injury and contributed to the driver’s death. The driver’s family sues the resident and the hospital at which she works, claiming negligence. The complaint states that the resident should have known not to move the patient and that the hospital bears responsibility for not training the resident adequately, and the lack of sleep resulting from the night on call. The most likely outcome for this legal case is which of the following?
A. Civil, but not criminal penalties, for both the resident and the hospital
B. Civil, but not criminal, penalties for the hospital, and no penalties for the resident
C. Civil, but not criminal, penalties for the resident, and no penalties for the hospital ‘O
D. Criminal and civil penalties for both the resident and the hospital
E. Criminal and civil penalties for the hospital, but not for the resident
F. Criminal and civil penalties for the resident, but not for the hospital
G. Neither civil nor criminal penalties for either the resident or the hospital
Explanation:
The correct answer is G. The issue here is a simple one the Good Samaritan law says that physicians do not have to stop to help in a non-medical situation like an accident. However to encourage them to stop, the physician is shielded from legal liability as long as he or she: 1) acts within their area of competency 2) does standard procedures, 3) stays until relieved by competent medical personnel and 4) receives no compensation. The physician can still be sued but is protected from any adverse judgment. In the present case all four of these conditions are met. Moving the patient when there is a threat of fire is perfectly reasonable. The physician is shielded from liability.
The hospital is also shielded from liability. The resident is technically an employee but was traveling home alter a night on call and therefore “off duty.”
Finally neither the physician nor the hospital is subject to any criminal charges. There was no malicious conduct nor any perverse neglect nor anything else that would rise to the level of criminal action.
Source: http://www.usmleworldwide.com/blog/?p=957
Subject: Behavioral Science
Q NO 42: While driving home at the end of an evening on call, a second year resident encounters an automobile accident. She decides to stop and render whatever aid she can. The accident involves two cars. In the first car, the driver was cushioned by an airbag and suffered only minor bruises and abrasions. In the second car, the driver was thrown against the steering wheel and against the wind shield, causing severe thoracic and closed head trauma. Fearing a fire, the resident pulls the driver out of the second car, and proceeds to do what she canto stop the loss of blood. In spite of her best efforts, the second driver dies. Subsequent autopsy determines that moving the driver from the car exacerbated a spinal injury and contributed to the driver’s death. The driver’s family sues the resident and the hospital at which she works, claiming negligence. The complaint states that the resident should have known not to move the patient and that the hospital bears responsibility for not training the resident adequately, and the lack of sleep resulting from the night on call. The most likely outcome for this legal case is which of the following?
A. Civil, but not criminal penalties, for both the resident and the hospital
B. Civil, but not criminal, penalties for the hospital, and no penalties for the resident
C. Civil, but not criminal, penalties for the resident, and no penalties for the hospital ‘O
D. Criminal and civil penalties for both the resident and the hospital
E. Criminal and civil penalties for the hospital, but not for the resident
F. Criminal and civil penalties for the resident, but not for the hospital
G. Neither civil nor criminal penalties for either the resident or the hospital
Explanation:
The correct answer is G. The issue here is a simple one the Good Samaritan law says that physicians do not have to stop to help in a non-medical situation like an accident. However to encourage them to stop, the physician is shielded from legal liability as long as he or she: 1) acts within their area of competency 2) does standard procedures, 3) stays until relieved by competent medical personnel and 4) receives no compensation. The physician can still be sued but is protected from any adverse judgment. In the present case all four of these conditions are met. Moving the patient when there is a threat of fire is perfectly reasonable. The physician is shielded from liability.
The hospital is also shielded from liability. The resident is technically an employee but was traveling home alter a night on call and therefore “off duty.”
Finally neither the physician nor the hospital is subject to any criminal charges. There was no malicious conduct nor any perverse neglect nor anything else that would rise to the level of criminal action.
Source: http://www.usmleworldwide.com/blog/?p=957
Great article, Thanks for your great information, the content is quiet interesting. I will be waiting for your next post.
ReplyDeleteHey keep posting such good and meaningful articles.
ReplyDeleteAmazing blog and very interesting stuff you got here! I definitely learned a lot from reading through some of your earlier posts as well and decided to drop a comment on this one!
ReplyDelete