Theparties involved in this case were Stowers who was the plaintiff andDr. Wolodzko, the defendant.
Originof the Case
Thecase originated from the Civil Trial Court
WhoWon the Case?
Theplaintiff won the case at a trial-Court level and was offered $40,000.
Dr.Wolodzko appealed indicating that it was not false imprisonment sincehe had a court order. However, his complaint was dismissed and thedecision upheld by the trial court.
Theplaintiff is a housewife living in Livonia, Michigan with herchildren and husband. Stower and her husband had marriage issues,resulting in her intentions to file for a divorce.
On6thDec the respondent had visited the plaintiff’s homestead andintroduced him by his name Dr. Wolodzko. The defendant and plaintiffhad not met before. The accused said he had been summoned by thehusband to come and evaluate his wife. At the time of visit, theoffender did not inform the plaintiff that he was a psychiatrist.
Issueswere false imprisonment, assault and battery, and malpractice.
Yes.The respondent should have given the plaintiff a chance to make acall to the lawyer.
Thecourt decision was false imprisonment where Dr. Walodzko was foundguilty of the crime. The decision was upheld by the court of appeal.
TheRationale for Judgment
Thelaw reiterates the need for protection against torture.
Doyou agree with rationale?
Iagree with the rationale since the defender used his power as adoctor to issue orders that stated what the patient was allowed to doresulting in their false imprisonment.
Thecourt explained false imprisonment in a broader perspective beyondjust holding an individual against their will. Providers should notrestrain the patient from communicating with their attorney.
Implicationswhen the decision was made
Healthcareinstitutions should come up with policies on when, how and the reasonpatient should be allowed to call their lawyer.
Thoseadmitted mental care facilities could still hold some patientincommunicado, with no ability to call a lawyer, mostly if thetreatment has been ordered by the court.