A registered nurse was employed by a nursing home. During her shift a resident died. The local police assessed the resident’s death. In relation to this event, the nursing home disciplined the nurse for failing to instruct another employee to conduct CPR on the resident and failing to notify the resident's physician.
The Ohio Department of Health investigated the resident’s death. In the course of its investigation, the nurse discussed the incident with a representative of the Ohio Department of Health. During this investigation, a question arose as to whether the expiration date on the nurse's CPR certification card had been altered. Consequently, the nursing home disciplined the nurse for violating a rule in the employee handbook and suspended her. The nurse challenged this discipline and succeeded in having her suspension revoked with back pay and the disciplinary report sealed.
Later, on a separate occasion, the nursing home disciplined the nurse for failing to follow a direct order from a supervisor in relation to shepherding a new resident through orientation.
Finally, the nursing home disciplined the nurse for improperly documenting information in a patient's medical record and a violating a safety rule. Specifically, the nursing home claimed the nurse had falsely indicated in a patient's treatment record that she had changed the patient's dressing, left a syringe by a patient's bedside during her shift, and left the medical cart unlocked. Consequently, the nursing home terminated the nurse’s employment.
The nurse sued the nursing home for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Ohio Revised Code § 3721.24(A), which prohibits retaliation for participating in a Department of Health investigation.
An insurer provided underinsured motorist coverage to a man with a policy limit of $30,000. The man was in a car accident. The accident was not his fault. The man suffered a number of physical injuries. He accepted the at-fault driver’s liability insurance policy limit of $25,000. He then filed an underinsured motorist claim with his insurance company.
The only disputed claim under the underinsured motorist policy involved the man’s teeth. Four years after the accident, the man visited a dentist. The dentist discovered extensive dental problems that he speculated were caused by the car accident and were simply neglected due to more pressing medical issues. He estimated the cost of repairing the man’s teeth to be $14,000.
The insurance company offered the man $5,000 for his underinsured motorist claim, which the man rejected. He argued he was entitled to $30,000. The case went to arbitration where arbitrators determined that the total award that the insurer owed the man was $18,500, which the insurer paid.
The man sued his insurance company for breach of contract, bad faith breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A patient underwent a medical procedure to implant a port-a-cath. The doctor performing that procedure told her that he discovered a guide wire in her vein, which he speculated had been left during a prior port-a-cath implantation. She sued the doctors who performed the prior port-a-cath implantation and the hospital where it was performed for medical malpractice. She was then informed that another party was responsible for the presence of the guide wire. She voluntarily dismissed the medical malpractice suit pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The doctors named in the original suit sued the patient for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
The patient filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the doctors could not prove that the prior suit had been terminated in their favor. The trial court denied her motion for summary judgment finding that issues of material fact existed with respect to the malicious prosecution claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial.