Oliver Vs Brock Case Study

1381 Words 6 Pages
A civil suit is commonly derived from a private party or individual, who alleges damages from duty of care. Once a civil case begins, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove, with evidence, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Conversely, the defendant must prove their affirmative defense against documented allegations. The Oliver versus Brock case proves the importance of supporting evidence as opposed to hearsay statements, to prove the truth of the matter. In the Oliver versus Brock case, Cathy (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Bryan Whitfield Memorial Hospital of Demopolis and the treating physicians Dr. F.S. Whitfield, Dr. Paul Ketcham and Dr. E.C. Brock (Defendant) for negligence of care. Analyzing the facts in the …show more content…
Whitfield who was accused of contacting Dr. Brock for advice in the treatment for Anita admits that he “described generally the injuries of Plaintiff and the type of treatment Affiant was then giving the Plaintiff, in which Dr. Brock did indicate he thought the treatment to be correct.” It is important to note that Dr. Whitfield never stated the Plaintiff’s name, making him unaware of the patient who received the treatment. In support of Dr. Brock, Whitfield stated that Brock was never employed by him or the Plaintiff to provide care or treatment to the Plaintiff’s injuries. The exchange between Brock and Whitfield was asserted by the court that “mere discussion between professional people of hypothetical situations cannot be viewed as a basis for liability.” The court defended that there is no law that refuses the professional freedom of physicians to compare problem-solving approaches to their counterparts in order to improve the quality of services they provide to the public. Dr. Ketcham’s affidavit concludes that he had no contact with Dr. Brock concerning the care or treatment of Oliver. He also noted that he was not aware of any contact between the Plaintiff and Dr. Brock while she was a patient at Bryan Whitfield Memorial Hospital. The supporting evidence mentioned above, lucidly supports Dr. Brock’s motion for summary judgment based on the adjudication of the …show more content…
Brock case provided substantial reasoning for the importance of having supporting documents attached with an affidavit in order to defend or oppose allegations. In the case, Anita Oliver filed a suit, which alleged negligence of care occurred by the treating physicians after consulting with Dr. Brock about treatment for Anita after an automobile accident. In the allegations, Mrs. Oliver’s supporting statements were hearsay or beliefs that Dr. Brock was responsible for the wrongful treatments of Anita, that later resulted in severe injuries. In defense, the defendant proved that no established physician-patient relationship existed and was able to provide personal knowledge and admissible evidence to support his motion for summary judgment. Due to the lack of evidence provided by Mrs. Oliver, the judge granted Brock’s motion for summary judgment to resolve the

Related Documents