MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7058653515

No "New" Breaches: Adding a Section to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act to Alleviate the Pain Caused by K.D. v. Chambers

2015· article· en· W7058653515 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueValpoScholar (Valparaiso University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndiana University EastMcGill UniversityValparaiso University
KeywordsWifeComplaintMedical malpracticeEstateDenialMalpracticeMedicare Part BPhone
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTIONFitz visits Green Medical Center with stomach pain. 1 The physician on duty, Dr. Huck, determines that Fitz needs a quick outpatient procedure to remedy his ailment.The procedure goes well, and Dr. Huck sends him home to recover.Three days later, Fitz experiences excruciating stomach pain, and Dr. Huck advises him to go to Lynniebrook Hospital.Within five hours of his arrival at the hospital, Dr. Syrus, a general surgeon, performs surgery on him.The next day, Nurse Quinn monitors Fitz, charting his progress and her care of him.He is recovering well, and the hospital staff informs his wife that he will be released in a few days.However, just a few hours later, Fitz's condition changes drastically.The on-call physician, Dr. Harrison, enters the room within three minutes of hearing the emergency code being called, and Dr. Harrison and Nurse Quinn attempt to resuscitate Fitz.Thirty minutes later, he is declared dead.Fitz's wife hires Olivia, a local attorney, to file suit.Complying with the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, Olivia first files a proposed complaint on behalf of Fitz's estate and his wife with the Indiana Department of Insurance and serves all parties. 2 The list of defendants is complex.She sues Green Medical Center and its employee, Dr. Huck, Lynniebrook Hospital and employees Dr. Harrison and Nurse Quinn, and IND Medial Group and its employee Dr. Syrus.The parties begin discovery, and submit evidence to the medical review panel ("Panel") to support their arguments that the medical providers did or did not breach the applicable standard of care in their treatment of Fitz. 3 The Panel determines Dr. Huck (which includes Green Medical Center) and Dr. Syrus (which includes IND Medical Group) breached the standard of care.However, it finds that Lynniebrook Hospital and its employees did not breach the standard of care.Now, a trial court gains jurisdiction over the case, and it proceeds like any other civil suit. 41 The hypothetical scenario is fictional and is the sole creation of the author.2 See infra notes 43-46 and accompanying text (reviewing the procedure to commence a medical malpractice lawsuit in Indiana).3 See infra notes 57-63 and accompanying text (explaining the requirements for a Panel submission and the acceptable forms of evidence that the parties may submit to the Panel).4See infra notes 69-71 and accompanying text (discussing the statutory requirements for a trial court to gain jurisdiction in a medical malpractice case).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueValpoScholar (Valparaiso University)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207