White Vs. Beeks Case Study

1047 Words5 Pages
The case, White vs. Beeks, involves accusations of medical liability filed on 13th July 2007. The plaintiff, Mr. White accused the defendant, Dr. Beeks of medical negligence after the back surgery performed by the doctor on 2nd May 2006. Mr. White had sought Dr. Beek’s medical care after constant pains in his back. As a result, the doctor advised Mr. White to undergo a back surgery, which the Mr. White agreed. However, the surgery did not go as expected because the patient started experiencing the pains a few months after the surgery. As a result, the plaintiff filed the case to the Bradley County Circuit Court. Upon hearing of the accusations, the Bradley County Circuit Court ruled against the use of the evidence given by Mr. White’s witness,…show more content…
Medical Acts also prohibit medical battery where a doctor performs a surgery without the patients consent. In the above case, there were no elements of medical battery since Mr. White had approved the surgery. There is a need to look in some other predisposing factors that could limit the success of a surgery or any treatment. For example, in Mr. White vs. Dr. Beek’s case, evidence shows that massive smoking contributed greatly to the patient’s constant back pains. As a result, every party had a role to play towards the recovery because the surgeon did his part and the patient had to stop smoking, which did not happen (Samanta & Samanta, 2014). The law in Tennessee Code requires the patients to prove beyond reasonable doubt that indeed the doctors failed to disclose all the information necessary in decision making. The law also required Mr. White to show that Dr. Beek’s failure to disclose the information caused harm or injuries. Due to this, Mr. White had to use a professional to testify against Dr. Beek by highlighting what the doctor needed to disclose to the patient. Under the law in medical malpractices cases, the plaintiffs had the task to attest that a doctor had failed to meet three provisions…show more content…
White and as a result, he appealed the decisions in the Supreme Court. After hearing the case, the Supreme Court overturned the court of appeal decisions. The Supreme Court argued that the doctor has the responsibility to disclose all the information necessary for the patients. Doctors should also reveal the probable risks in relation to any medical operation. In this case, Dr. Beeks did not provide Mr. White with the risks that he would suffer after the bone infusion. The Supreme Court also faulted the court of appeal’s decision to prohibit evidence from the plaintiff’s witness since it affected their final judgment. The judges in the court of appeal did not hear any risks associated with the surgery due to the exclusion of the Mr. White’s

    More about White Vs. Beeks Case Study

      Open Document