Describe the Case Worksheet Issue (What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court?) ● Who are the parties in this case: plaintiff and defendant? Plaintiff: Arturo Iturralde (Estate) & daughter/caretaker Rosalinda Defendant: Hilo Medical Center USA & Dr. Ricketson ● What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court? Hilo Medical Center admitted Arturo Iturralde because the patient complained of frequent falls and bilateral legs weakness. Upon diagnosis, the orthopedic physician, Dr. Ricketson, diagnosed the patient degenerative spondylolisthesis L4–5 with stenosis and booked a spinal fusion surgery. The medical equipment kits meant to conduct the procedure were not available at the hospital, so they were ordered from Medtronic. Upon their arrival, the inventory staff attendant failed to record them. Despite Dr. Ricketson being informed about this mistake, he decided to continue with the operation as scheduled. Failure to locate the appropriate rods needed to stabilize the spine; the doctor became impatient of the 90 minutes it would take for them to be brought and as an alternative used a screwdriver that was in the kit. The patient was not informed and later discharged home with permission to drive and advised to follow up on weakly therapies. While at home, the rod broke and the patient required a fresh operation. The caretaker present took the pieces of the fractured screwdriver to the lawyer because her supervisor would want to disclose why the leading operation was unsuccessful. Later, the patient kicked the bucket after experiencing many complications after the operation had taken place. ● Is the court deciding a question of fact—i.e., are the parties in dispute over what happened? Or is it a question of law—i.e., is the court unsure which rule to apply to these facts? The court was deciding a law issue. The law issue is whether the hospital and the doctor responsible were careless enough to cause the death of the patient. ● Which facts of the case raise issues? Three states were against Dr. Ricketson license on professionalism disciplinary orders before joining Hilo Medical Center. Dr. Ricketson declined the delivered two rods by the Medtronic supplies amid the medical procedure in the emergency clinic. The medical attendant watching did not report before the patient started complaining about the adverse results because he was operated with a screwdriver. ● What are the nonissues? Out of the many falls the patient experienced, it led to the breaking of screwdriver bar. ● Other Modified from http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/irac.html Sheet1EL SUBJUNTIVO CON CONJUNCIONES AMARILLAS Y VERDESVERDES AMARILLAS(siempre subjuntivo)¡cuidado! (a veces subjuntivo)Acción pendiente: modelos:Te voy a llamar para que vengas a la fiesta.Iremos al cine tan pronto como mi papá llegue a casa.Acción habitualPresente del subjuntivoPresente del indicativomodelos:Mi madre siempre me llama para que estudie mucho.Solemos ir a.

1. Describe the Case Worksheet
Issue (What facts and circumstances brought these parties to
court?)
● Who are the parties in this case: plaintiff and defendant?
Plaintiff: Arturo Iturralde (Estate) &
daughter/caretaker Rosalinda
Defendant: Hilo Medical Center USA & Dr.
Ricketson
● What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court?
Hilo Medical Center admitted Arturo Iturralde because the
patient complained of frequent falls and bilateral legs weakness.
Upon diagnosis, the orthopedic physician, Dr. Ricketson,
diagnosed the patient degenerative spondylolisthesis L4–5 with
stenosis and booked a spinal fusion surgery. The medical
equipment kits meant to conduct the procedure were not
available at the hospital, so they were ordered from Medtronic.
Upon their arrival, the inventory staff attendant failed to record
them. Despite Dr. Ricketson being informed about this mistake,
he decided to continue with the operation as scheduled. Failure
to locate the appropriate rods needed to stabilize the spine; the
doctor became impatient of the 90 minutes it would take for
them to be brought and as an alternative used a screwdriver that
was in the kit. The patient was not informed and later
discharged home with permission to drive and advised to follow
up on weakly therapies. While at home, the rod broke and the
patient required a fresh operation. The caretaker present took
the pieces of the fractured screwdriver to the lawyer because
her supervisor would want to disclose why the leading operation
was unsuccessful. Later, the patient kicked the bucket after
experiencing many complications after the operation had taken
place.
● Is the court deciding a question of fact—i.e., are the parties in

2. dispute over what happened?
Or is it a question of law—i.e., is the court unsure which rule to
apply to these facts?
The court was deciding a law issue. The law issue is whether
the hospital and the doctor responsible were careless enough to
cause the death of the patient.
● Which facts of the case raise issues?
Three states were against Dr. Ricketson license on
professionalism disciplinary orders before joining Hilo Medical
Center.
Dr. Ricketson declined the delivered two rods by the Medtronic
supplies amid the medical procedure in the emergency clinic.
The medical attendant watching did not report before the patient
started complaining about the adverse results because he was
operated with a screwdriver.
● What are the nonissues?
Out of the many falls the patient experienced, it led to the
breaking of screwdriver bar.
● Other
Modified from http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/irac.html
Sheet1EL SUBJUNTIVO CON CONJUNCIONES AMARILLAS
Y VERDESVERDES AMARILLAS(siempre
subjuntivo)¡cuidado! (a veces subjuntivo)Acción pendiente:
modelos:Te voy a llamar para que vengas a la fiesta.Iremos al
cine tan pronto como mi papá llegue a casa.Acción
habitualPresente del subjuntivoPresente del
indicativomodelos:Mi madre siempre me llama para que estudie
mucho.Solemos ir al cine en cuanto mi papá llega a casa.Acción
pasadaImperfecto del subjuntivoImperfecto o préterito del
indicativomodelos:Les di ejemplos a Uds. para que sacaran una
“A” en la prueba.Ayer fuimos al cine cuando mi papá llegó a

3. casa.Conjuniones adverbiales:verdesamarillas
Memorícenlasa menos quecuandoantes de quedespués de que
con tal queen cuantoen caso de quehasta quepara quetan pronto
comosin queaunque
Sheet2
Sheet3
201 Repaso final
¿El subjuntivo o no? Expresiones amarillas y verdes
Completa las oraciones de una manera correcta. Cuidado con el
modo y el tiempo verbal.
1. Vamos a la playa tan pronto como
.
2. Te voy a amar hasta que
.
3. Su padre le da leche para que
.
4. Sarita y yo saldremos de la casa sin que
.
5. Hacía mi tarea cuando
.
6. Mi mejor amigo va a morir a menos que
.
Las cláusulas con “si”. Forma oraciones completas y originales
con los elementos dados.
1. si / yo / contarles / las historias / (verbo en el presente)
2. mis amigos / cuidar / / si / (verbo en el futuro)
3. si / tú / enfermarse / / (verbo en el condicional)
4. si / Uds. / acercarse / / / (verbo en el futuro)
5. si / el doctor / examinar / / (verbo en el presente)

4. ¿El presente perfecto del subjuntivo o el pluscuamperfecto del
indicativo? Llene los espacios en blanco con la forma correcta
del verbo usando el pluscuamperfecto del indicativo o el
presente perfecto del subjuntivo.
1. Es horripilante que la pofe no __ (escribir) más pruebas.
2. Niego que mi padre les _ (dar) un descuento.
3. Cuando el profesor nos dio la prueba, ya (resolver) los
problemas más difíciles.
4. ¿Marilyn y tú ya (ver) la película antes de que llegaran?
5. ¿Por qué crees que tu novia no te (decir) la verdad?
¿Subjuntivo o indicative?Llena el espacio en blanco con la
forma correcta del verbo en paréntesis. Da la razón cuando se
necesita el subjuntivo. EI = expresión impersonal, VV = verbo
de voluntad, VE = verbo de emoción, VD = verbo de duda,
Verde = verde, AM = amarilla, NE/IDF = no existe/indefinido,
CS = cláusula con “si”, NS = no subjuntivo.
1. Mi profesor de matemáticas no creía que Catalina (sacar) una
‘C’ en la clase.
2. Es extraño que todas las mariposas (venir) aquí todos los
años el mismo día.
3. Mi papá siempre exploraba los barrios nuevos tan pronto
como (ellos) los (construir)
4. No queríamos que tú (acercarse) al cocodrilo por miedo de
las posibles consecuencias.
5. Busco una bahía que (tener) agua cristalina y palmeras
alrededor.
6. Es aconsejable que yo (arreglar) todo antes de ir a un viaje a
la selva amazónica.
7. (yo) Temía que las pirañas me (comer) .
8. Hay dos rocas donde las tortugas (buscar) comida.
9. Sus padres le rogaron a Norman que (quedarse) en la

5. universidad.
10. Mi suegra siempre toma su medicina para que (poder)
respirar bien.
Sección auditiva – Como sección IB del examen 18
Lectura - Habrá una lectura que no han visto y unas preguntas
sobre la lectura. Para practicar, hagan las actividades similares
en WebSam.
Sección literaria – Como las secciones que han visto todo el
semestre. Las preguntas serán como las que hemos visto en
clase y para la tarea.
IHP 420 Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric
Overview: The final case study for this course will require you
to analyze a court decision in which a physician was found
liable for medical malpractice. You will
focus on facts pertaining to the medical standard of care, breach
of care, and causation, and you will explain how they were
applied to law. You will then use the
facts of the case to identify an ethics issue and determine an
ethical theory that would help provide a safe, quality healthcare
experience for the patient. Next,
you will apply a clinician–patient shared decision-making
model to describe how the ethics issue could be resolved. You
will also include a discussion about
possible violations of the code of ethics in your given field.
Lastly, you will augment or vary the facts of the case to create a
hypothetical scenario that changes
the outcome so that the physician is no longer liable for medical

6. malpractice.
For this milestone, you will start working on the case for Final
Project I: Malpractice. Below is is a link to the case you will
investigate. This link is also provided in
the Final Project I Guidelines and Rubric document.
Surgery: Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center USA
Prompt: In this milestone, you will complete part of your
analysis of the malpractice case. Using this analysis of the case,
you will address the facts pertaining to
the medical standard of care, breach of care, and causation.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
I. Introduction:
A. Summarize the case, including information on the
stakeholders involved, the problem, and the time period the
incident occurred.
II. Medical Malpractice Component: In this section, you will
evaluate the case to address the legal components, the
malpractice policies similar to this
case, and the standard of care given to the patient and how it
was breached. Then, you will draw connections to how this
malpractice case impacted
stakeholders and healthcare consumers outside of the case.

7. A. Explain the key legal components of the case, including the
nature of the issue and the rules that applied.
B. Determine relevant malpractice policies in place for
addressing the issues within the case.
C. Analyze the malpractice case for the standard of care
provided to the victim. Be sure to apply what the law states
about standard of care to
support whether or not it was breached in the case.
D. Analyze how the malpractice case would impact healthcare
consumers from different cultural backgrounds. For example,
would this case have a
similar impact on a person from a culture different from the one
in the case? How could this incident change the views of these
healthcare
consumers toward the healthcare system?
E. Assess the malpractice case for accountability based on its
severity. To what extent was the healthcare provider held
accountable?
Rubric
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-intermediate-court-of-
appeals/1597588.html
Guidelines for Submission: Your paper should be a 2- to 3-page
Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times
New Roman font, one-inch
margins, and at least three sources cited in APA format.

8. Critical Elements Proficient (100%) Needs Improvement (70%)
Not Evident (0%) Value
Introduction:
Summarize
Summarize the case, including
information on the
stakeholders involved, the
problem, and the time period
of the incident that occurred
Summarizes the case, but
summary is cursory or illogical,
contains inaccuracies, or does
not include information on the
stakeholders, the problem, or
the time period of the incident
Does not summarize the case 15
Medical Malpractice
Component: Legal
Components
Explains the key legal
components of the case,
including the nature of the
issue and the rules that applied
Explains the key legal
components of the case, but
analysis is illogical, contains
inaccuracies, or does not

9. include the nature of the issue
or the rules that applied
Does not explain the key legal
components of the case
15
Medical Malpractice
Component:
Malpractice Policies
Determines relevant
malpractice policies in place for
addressing the issues within the
case
Determines malpractice
policies, but response lacks
detail, or the chosen policies
are irrelevant or do not address
the issues of the case
Does not determine relevant
malpractice policies in place for
addressing the issues within the
case
15
Medical Malpractice
Component:
Standard of Care

10. Analyzes the malpractice case
for the standard of care
provided to the victim, and
applies what the law states
about standard of care to
support whether or not it was
breached in the case
Analyzes the malpractice case
for the standard of care
provided to the victim, but
does not apply what the law
states about standard of care
Does not analyze the
malpractice case for the
standard of care provided to
the victim
15
Medical Malpractice
Component: Cultural
Backgrounds
Analyzes how the malpractice
case would impact healthcare
consumers from different
cultural backgrounds
Analyzes how the malpractice
case would impact healthcare
consumers from different
cultural backgrounds, but
analysis is cursory or contains

11. inaccuracies
Does not analyze how the
malpractice case would impact
healthcare consumers from
different cultural backgrounds
15
Medical Malpractice
Component:
Accountability
Assesses the malpractice case
for accountability based on its
severity and explains the level
of accountability the healthcare
provider was held to
Assesses the malpractice case
for accountability based on its
severity and explains the level
of accountability the healthcare
provider was held to, but
explanation lacks detail or is
illogical
Does not assess the malpractice
case for accountability based
on its severity

12. 15
Articulation of
Response
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact
readability and articulation of
main ideas
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
10
Total 100%