Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Mark Turner v. Memorial Medical Center 911 N.E.2d 369 (2009) 233 Ill.

2d 494 Case Analysis By: Kelsey Bradford

I.

Procedure
A. Plaintiff Mark Turner Defendant Memorial Medical Center B. Mark Turner, a former respiratory therapist at Memorial, brought the action C. The case originated in the circuit court of Sangamon County D. The circuit court dismissed the plaintiffs first-amended complaint E. The appellate court upheld the dismissal, allowed plaintiffs petition for leave to appeal, and now affirm the judgment of the appellate court

II.

Facts
Plaintiff is a trained and licensed respiratory therapist at Memorial beginning in 1983 During employment, plaintiff consistently met legitimate employment expectations and his evaluations consistently indicated excellent work performance September 2006, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations performed an on-site survey at Memorial The purpose of the survey was to determine if Memorial would continue to receive Joint Commission accreditation Failure to receive this accreditation would result in loss of Medicare/Medicaid funding Memorial uses a computer charting program that allows medical professionals to electronically chart a patients file Joint Commission standard is that such charting is done immediately after care is provided to a patient Memorials respiratory therapy department didnt require immediate charting, just for them to do it at some point during his or her shift September 28, 2006 plaintiff was asked to speak with a Joint Commission surveyor Also present was Memorials vice president of patient care services During the meeting plaintiff truthfully advised the surveyor of the discrepancy between Joint Commission standard of charting immediately and Memorials requirement of charting at some point during a shift Plaintiff further advised the surveyor that this was jeopardizing patient safety Plaintiff alleged that his truthful statements to the Joint Commission surveyor led to his being discharged by Memorial on October 4, 2006

III.

Issues
A. The plaintiff alleged retaliatory discharge by Memorial Medical Center B. I agree

IV.

Holding
A. The court upheld the judgment of the appellate court in favor of the defendant The plaintiff did, however, find a specific source of his alleged clearly mandated public policy of "patient safety" B. The plaintiff failed to sufficiently please the existence of a clearly mandated public policy in this case. C. Yes, I agree with the court

V. Implications
A. Hospitals and healthcare facilities should make sure to get their records completed immediately after a patient is seen. Also, employees should not be punished for speaking the truth. B. This case implied that Memorial Medical Center needed to change its procedures for charting patient information. C. The healthcare administrators should change the policies and procedures, and then they need to make staff aware of the changes. Also, administrators should make sure employees understand the importance of the changes and follow them. D. If this case hadn't occurred then Memorial would probably still be charting patient information in an untimely manner, which could have resulted in fatalities at the hospital.

Оценить