Good Samaritan Act - Reynoso v. Newman - Essay Example

Good Samaritan Act - Reynoso Vs Newman Table of Contents Case 3 Place 3 Parties Involved in the Case 3 Outcome 4 Different Method of Dealingwith the Situation 5 References 6 Date of Case The case was held on January 10, 2005 (FindLaw, “REYNOSO v. NEWMAN”). Place The case took place in California at Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1 (FindLaw, “REYNOSO v. NEWMAN”). Parties Involved in the Case One of the parties involved in the case is Orlando Reynoso who was an incompetent person and ‘mentally retarded’ since his birth.

With respect to the case, he was plaintiff and appellant. The defendant and respondent was Mr. Jeffrey L. Newman (FindLaw, “REYNOSO v. NEWMAN”). Outcome The Good Samaritan Laws are those that defend people who decide to serve others as similar to one who are injured or are ill. This law differs from one jurisdiction to another. The principles that pertains the Good Samaritan laws operate in countries such as Australia where the foundation of the legal system is the English Common Law. The case here is related to the Good Samaritan Act.

Bruce Adams who was a DDS by his occupation had put his patient named Orlando Reynoso under general anesthesia. The reason behind this was that Mr. Adams wanted to perform oral surgery. According to the records, it is evident that San Diego county dentist has been administering the anesthesia as Reynoso was mentally retarded by birth. As a result he couldn’t sit calmly throughout the dental procedure. After Mr. Reynoso was sent to the recovery room, it was recognized by the dentist that the oxygen saturation levels of the patient were low.

Therefore, according to the recommendations of Dr. Lo, Reynoso was sent to the hospital for further treatment in which an aspiration related to blood might arise. Later Mr. Adams called up his friend, a physician named Jeffrey L. Newman, in order to gain second opinion. Mr. Newman arrived shortly after Mr. Adams called him. He recommended that Reynoso must be sent to the hospital. At first it was decided to arrange for a non emergency transfer. However, due to the non availability of the ambulance, they called up 911 to take Mr.

Reynoso to the hospital. It was utter surprising that Mr. Reynoso sued Dr. Newman and others as he claimed that the doctors were quite negligent for not recognizing the emergency case and didn’t take him to the hospital at prompt. According to Reynoso, it was because of this negligence that he was deprived of the oxygen and this led to worsening of his mental retardation and other behavioral problems. Mr. Newman then pleaded the court to take off the lawsuit against him as he has responded as a Good Samaritan. While Mr. Reynoso said that the law mustn’t shield Dr. Newman. After reviewing the trial court decision, the Appellate court confirmed the trial court rulings of summary judgment that was awarded on the ground that the Good Samaritan statue assisted Dr.

Newman with a defense from liability. Dr. Newman was granted to be immune or protected from the liability according to the Good Samaritan statue (Albert, “Good Samaritan Law Shields California Doctor from Liability”). Different Method of Dealing with the Situation The method that has been adopted to deal with the situation seems to be appropriate as the case has been sensitive. Moreover, Mr. Newman has been a Good Samaritan as he responded to the emergency. The court’s judgment has been appropriate according to the situation.

References Albert, Tanya. “Good Samaritan Law Shields California Doctor from Liability”. February 02, 2011. Amednews, 2005. FindLaws. “REYNOSO v. NEWMAN”. February 02, 2011. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California, 2011.