hey can somebody explain why the answer is the one in bold and why it can not also be choice A. I see that the cross for A and B would both give heterozygotes for the F1 generation so why is A wrong. The more thorough you are in you answer i would appreciate it.
In 2019, Ms. Love visited the offices of Awesome Plastic Cosmetic & Laser Surgery Center, where she consulted with plastic surgeon, Thomas Awesome, M.D., regarding breast augmentation surgery. According to Ms. Love she informed Dr. Awesome that she wished to have her breast size increased. Specifically, she told him that she wanted to be a size 34C. Ms.Love asserts that Dr. Awesome assured her that the surgery would accomplish this goal.Dr. Awesome disagrees and states that he gave no assurances or guarantees regarding M.s Love’s post-operative breast size, other than to inform her that her "breasts would most likely be between a B and C cup post-operatively. Dr. Awesome explains that he never gives assurances or guarantees regarding breast size to any patient.
During the consultation, Ms. Love decided to undergo the procedure. She was given a six-page informed consent document. However, Ms.Lovey says that no one reviewed the document with her. She did read through the document as she was speaking to her husband on her cellular telephone. Ms. Love then initialed the first five pages of the document and signed the last page. It is undisputed that the document contains a disclaimer stating that Ms. Love acknowledged that "no guarantee has been given by anyone as to the results that may be obtained."
The surgery was scheduled for March 26, 2019. On that day, Ms. Love presented to Awesome’s office and was provided with another document, entitled "Consent to Operation," which again stated that no guarantees had been given regarding the outcome of the surgery. Although Ms. Love signed the document, she also reports that she was under the influence of drugs prescribed by Dr. Awesome and that the drugs made her so drowsy that her husband had to carry her in to the office.
Following the surgery, Ms. Love made follow-up visits to Dr. Awesome’s office. During one of those visits, she was give a piece of paper on which was written the size and style of bra that the doctor wanted Ms. Love to purchase. A review of the paper reveals that it had Dr. Awesome’s office address and telephone number type-set at the top. The paper had the following in hand-writing: "34C Cup Long Line Style 1805."
Ms. Love contends that following surgery and after-care, her breast size is less than a 34B. The surgery involved no complications, Ms. Love has healed well and has no medical symptoms or complaints. She filed suit against Dr. Awesome alleging claims for breach of oral contract.
Consider the case described above. Here is some more information: Remember how Dr. Awesome prescribed her drugs that made her unable to walk, such that her husband had to carry her? When Ms. Love read through her own medical record she found a notation by one of the nurses (who just happened to be Ms. Love's neighbor). That notation said, " Patient appears to be intoxicated; I have seen this behavior before and she is an alcoholic". Ms. Love is very upset by this statement. She tells you that she never drinks and that her altered state was due to the prescribed medication. Could Ms. Love sue the nurse for defamation? Are there any other intentional torts that could be alleged by Ms. Love based on the nurse's statement? What would she need to prove to succeed in such claims?
cn+ = wild type eyes (dull red), cn = cinnabar (bright red)eyes.w+ = wild type eyes (pigmented) w = white eyes (unpigmented).Cinnabar and white are each recessive to their respective wild typeallele. The cn allele is autosomal, while the w allele is X-linked.The white eye trait is epistatic to cinnabar, that is, all w wflies have white eyes, regardless of the cn genotype. A wild-typeeyed female of genotype cn+ cn; w+ w is crossed to a cn+ cn; w Ywhite eyed male.What progeny ratios for eye color will be produced among the maleand female offspring?Note: The wild-type allele of each gene is dominant only to its ownmutant allele. Masking epistasis is NOT a form of dominance. Becareful to clarify your thinking about the difference betweenepistasis and dominance. Epistasis will not necessarily be definedon the exam.
CASE STUDY:
Jolinda Hobble had a history of her left knee slipping out of joint since 1998. She went to see Dr. Ralph J. Verygood, an orthopedic surgeon who recommended corrective surgery after Jolinda had a major dislocation of the left kneecap in July of 2000. As a result of this surgery, Jolinda suffers from palsy of her left foot, a condition evidenced by numbness in her big toe and three adjoining toes, the numbness extending about half way up her foot on both the top and the bottom. Jolinda was advised that she might still experience postsurgical knee problems, including inability to walk altogether. She also says that she was not specifically warned about possible postsurgical numbness to either her left leg or foot. Dr.Verygood says that he did indeed warn Jolinda about this possibility.
The surgery was performed July 31, 2000. Jolinda was placed under general anesthetic and remained unconscious throughout the operation. Dr. Verygood performed a surgical procedure which has the effect of realigning the entire mechanism controlling the kneecap in order to correct the knee dislocation. During the operation a pneumatic tourniquet was applied to Jolinda's leg to help the operation procedure by cutting off the blood supply to the leg to create a dry (bloodless) surgical field. Following surgery Jolinda's leg was wrapped by Nurse Vicky with a padded dressing consisting of expandable bandage extending from the toes to the top of her leg. Nurse Vicky is an employee of the hospital.
Dr. Verygood was scheduled to take a few days vacation after the operation, but he nevertheless checked on Jolinda in the recovery room within one hour of the surgery. He also wrote detailed orders to be followed during his absence.
Jolinda says that she first awakened around dinner time on the day surgery was performed, but that she did not regain full consciousness until the following morning. At that time she became aware of a throbbing pain in her left leg which was concentrated on the knee and foot. Jolinda first complained about the pain to the hospital nurse, Nicky the morning after surgery. Nothing was done about the pain, however, until she was checked by Dr. Greatman, Dr. Verygood's partner, on the second postoperative day. Following Dr. Greatman's visit, Jolinda's bandages were cut off in the foot area giving her some relief and after which she experienced a tingling sensation throughout the whole foot.
Jolinda received follow up care from Dr. Verygood after surgery for about one year and during this time period Jolinda's complaints of pain and numbness in her left foot continued.
Here is some more information to consider: You end up hiring for your expert, Dr. Richard Cutgood, a board certified orthopedic surgeon, who had performed literally thousands of knee surgeries in his medical career. Dr. Cutgood is of the opinion that the risk of the type of injuries Jolida has following this type of surgery was statistically nonexistent.
Dr. Cutgood concluded that the most probable cause of plaintiff's injury was external pressure either from the tourniquet used during surgery or from the application of tight bandages after the operation. He considered the probability of nerve damage during the actual surgical procedure to be small because the surgical knife "isn't long enough to reach over and cut that nerve." Regarding the tourniquet, from his experience tourniquet pressure ordinarily does not result damage to the nerves unless "it is incorrectly applied or it is applied over a bony prominence or the tourniquet itself is defective."
Dr. Cutgood stated that while nothing in the record indicated that defendant did anything wrong during the surgery, he was of the opinion defendant was "below the usual and customary standard of care" as such result "does not generally occur without some untoward action of the surgeon."
Does the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor apply to this case? What does this legal term mean? What are the conditions that need to be present for this doctrine to apply?
