Case Summary on Oliver vs. Magnolia Clinic - Assignment Example

The plaintiffs of the case included Joe and Helena Oliver (Oliver vs. Magnolia Clinic, 2010). Joe and Helena Oliver sought treatment for their sick daughter Taylor in Magnolia Clinic, where she received treatment 32 times during the first year of her life (Oliver vs. Magnolia Clinic, 2010).

However, when she turned 12 months old, another hospital diagnosed her with neuroblastoma (a kind of childhood cancer), which she may have had a 90% chance of event-free recovery if only she was diagnosed with the disease in her first year (Oliver vs. Magnolia Clinic, 2010). In this case, the plaintiffs sought relief from the Medical Malpractice Act which limits their damages claim to $500,000 from the original verdict of $6,000,000, citing that it is unconstitutional on the grounds of violating the equal protection guarantees as provided by the Louisiana Constitution (Oliver vs.

Magnolia Clinic, 2010). Meanwhile, the defendant, Nurse Practitioner Susan Duhon, is the owner of Magnolia Clinic, where Taylor Oliver received treatment within the first year of her life (Oliver vs. Magnolia Clinic, 2010). She was charged with malpractice by the plaintiffs but only owed $500,000 worth of damages to the plaintiffs due to provisions stated in the Medical Malpractice Act. While the plaintiffs sought relief from the Medical Malpractice Act, the defendant, and the State “motion for a new trial, arguing that the plaintiffs had not challenged the part of the law applying it to nurse practitioners so that the trial court should not have ruled on that part of the law” (Oliver vs.

Magnolia Clinic, 2010). This case was appealed to the Supreme Court due to the fact that the plaintiffs kept seeking relief from the Medical Malpractice Act, to which their claim of $6,000,000 worth of damages would be seriously diminished to recoverable general damages of $500,000 (Oliver vs. Magnolia Clinic, 2010). While the jury awarded $6,000,000 recoverable general damages due to the malpractice done by Nurse Practitioner Susan Duhon, the defendant sought an appeal from the appellate court, arguing that “the plaintiffs had not challenged the part of the law applying it to nurse practitioners” (Oliver vs.

Magnolia Clinic, 2010), to which the judge of the trial court “reduced the jury’s award of $6,000,000 in general damages to $500,000, the maximum allowed by the MMA” (Oliver vs. Magnolia Clinic, 2010). The plaintiffs then went to the Appellate Court and sought relief from the MMA, arguing that the MMA was unconstitutional (Oliver vs. Magnolia Clinic, 2010), to which the appellate court decided in favor of the plaintiffs. One of the most important implications for the nursing practice raised by Oliver vs.

Magnolia Clinic is the fact that the cap provided by the Medical Malpractice Act cannot always be used as insurance against malpractice, due to the fact that enforcement of this legislation can be barred when the State fails to articulate more than a “rational basis” for the cap in cases where severely injured victims of malpractice is involved (Oliver vs. Magnolia Clinic, 2010). In this case, I think that the Louisiana Supreme Court must uphold the decision of the appellate court, given that the MMA clearly violates the equal protection guarantees as provided by the Louisiana Constitution.