Summary Of Tomcik V. Ohio Department Of Rehabilitation

The case study “The Court Was Appalled” details Tomcik v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections. In 1989, Tomcik was in custody within the Ohio Department of Corrections. She received an initial medical evaluation by a physician, Dr. Evans, employed at the facility she was detained at, including a breast exam, who determined she was healthy. Tomcik conducted her own breast exam and found a lump in her right breast. She made repeated attempts to be re-evaluated and several mistakes were made during the subsequent evaluations she did receive. Six months later, a physician not employed with the DOC determined Tomcik needed a modified radical mastectomy. The Ohio Department of Corrections was faulted by the Court of Appeals for

Evans and the Ohio Department of Corrections failed Tomcik in applying basic ethical theories. Normative and applied ethics were not followed because the minimal standard of care in this case called for palpitation of the breasts, which was not done. If the physician knew that palpitation of the side of Tomcik’s breasts was the correct minimal procedure to detect cancer and he did not complete it, he failed to apply the theory of how he should behave. Deontological ethics were failed as the doctor was duty-bound to “do no harm or injustice”. (Greek Medicine, 2012)
The stakeholders would first be the Ohio Department of Corrections, Dr. Evans, and the plaintiff, Tomcik. Additional stakeholders would include other state penal institutions, their medical teams, and inmates. The decision by the Court of Appeals would first affect the Ohio Department of Corrections, Dr. Evans, and Tomcik in any damages that might be awarded. The additional stakeholders would be affected in, hopefully, a re-evaluation and application of new standards of care regarding how medical care is conducted in the

In April 2016, Oregon and the physicians it employs within its Department of Corrections were sued for medical malpractice when an inmate’s unchecked kidney stone caused an abscess and ultimate removal of her kidney which occurred in 2013 and 2014. (Peterson, 2016) In 2015, an inmate was awarded almost $16 million in damages due to paralysis. In November 2006 the physician employed by the state facility failed to recognized the severity of the inmate’s spinal injuries and send him for the proper neurological evaluation and treatment. The court found the “Defendant's care of Claimant fell below acceptable standards of practice” (Stashenko, 2015). In 2009 a former inmate of the Hawaii corrections department was awarded close to $1 million in damages for an incident in 2003, in which the physician’s failure to give the correct type and dosage of antibiotic for an infection in his scrotum. This resulted in 6 subsequent surgeries and the removal of his scrotum, rendering him