From: Ashlee Nong HCA 340 To: Professor Schipske 06 October 2017 Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging Ltd., Supreme Court of Arizona 70 P.3d 435, 2003 1. The complete title and citation of the case: Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging Ltd., 70 P. 3d 435 (2003). 2. Explain which court decided this case: Supreme Court of Arizona decided this case. The Court of Appeals maintained the trial judge's decisions, yet the Supreme Court concurred with Duncan that the Medical Malpractice Act arrangement which bars misbehavior claims in view of battery abuses the Arizona Constitution's assurance for the privilege to sue. 3. How did the case get to the court? Discuss the procedural history of the case The case was brought to court by a woman name Martha …show more content…
What legal issues were decided by the Court in this case? The legal issues were decided by the court in this case were one, whether a drug injection against a patient’s will considers a battery and, two, whether it goes against the Ariozna constitution as a repeal of a patient’s right to collect for personal damages through common …show more content…
On the day of her MRI procedure, June 19, 1998, Ms. Duncan presented herself at Scottsdale Medical Imaging where she underwent an MRI examination. Ms. Duncan requested sedative for her back condition in order to undergo an MRI examination. As Ms. Duncan mentioned prior to her visits at the facility that she only accepts demerol or morphine as the sedation for her procedure. She was assured by a nurse over the phone that she will only be administered by the two drugs mentioned above for her procedure. However, she was administered with fentanyl in lieu of demerol or morphine as she demanded by Nurse Gary Fink, despite the facts that Duncan repeated herself three times that if it is not demerol or morphine then she would have to reschedule her MRI appointment. The administration of fentanyl causes severe allergic reactions to Duncan. 6. What did the Court decide? Give its holding (decision) and the reasons it gave for the decision (reasoning)? As the court found SMI is not responsible for Nurse Fink’s action. Though plaintiff stated a claim for battery but she did agree to the procedure through informed of consent. The court ruled in favor of SMI although plaintiff was being lied to about the drug she was administered with. The court decided to “vacate the court of appeals’ memorandum decision, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the case to the trial court for further