|
No. 126603
| Donald E. Tate, |
|
William E. Matz |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
vs (Oakland - O'Brien, C.) |
|
|
| Botsford General Hospital, |
|
Linda M. Garbarino |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Response >>
Defendant-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Background
On January 18, 2001, Donald Tate experienced an upset stomach and nausea. He drove to Botsford Hospital, where he was admitted to the emergency department. With Tate's consent, and under the direction of Dr. Diane Paratore, a board-certified emergency medicine physician, an attendant took Tate's blood pressure and a blood sample and inserted an intravenous IV in his arm. At this point, Tate decided that the doctor "did not know what she was doing," and said that he wanted to leave Botsford and go to Beaumont Hospital . Paratore told him that he was not well enough to leave. When he tried to get up, the doctor called a security guard, who restrained Tate with wrist restraints. Tate claims that he was treated at the hospital for more than 36 hours without his consent and was prevented from leaving. He alleges in his lawsuit that the hospital's actions falsely imprisoned him there. The hospital asserts that Tate was experiencing a rare but recognized reaction to the drug Compazine, which was given to treat Tate's nausea. Because of this life-threatening reaction, Tate required immediate care and treatment and was not, the hospital claimed, competent to consent to or refuse treatment. The trial court agreed, and dismissed the lawsuit against the hospital. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that if plaintiff was competent, he had a right to refuse treatment. The appellate court found that there was an insufficient record regarding the information Tate was given at the hospital and that there was a question of fact as to whether he was competent to refuse treatment. The hospital seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Top of Page
|
