In the case Martin V. Abilene Regional Medical Center 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 897, Rick Martin was a patient at the Abilene Regional Medical Center where he was served under the care of Dr. Thorp Gorman and other nurses. In this case, Mr. Martin is suing Cardiology Consultants if Texas that are Dr. Thorps practice group, Abilene Regional Medical Center and Dr. Thorp Gorman for the medical malpractice action. This paper tries to explain the events of the case where the appellant is Rick Martin, and the appellee is Abilene Regional Medical Center.

Nature of dispute
As indicated above, the dispute is due to the medical malpractice action. The patient reiterates that there was negligence on the medical practitioner’s side to discharge him without the necessary medication. The nurse who read the discharge instructions identified that they were missing Plavix. The nurse neglected even asking or confirming whether the discharge instructions were correct. Therefore, this action makes the hospital liable for the complications that Mr. Martin experienced after discharge. They lead to his readmission. First, the discharge instructions were not fully correct. Therefore, the hospital becomes liable, and negligence on the nurse side makes the issue a medical malpractice. As a medical practitioner, one is expected to serve the patients with the surety of which for such an instance, it would have been easy by just confirming the instructions.

Case facts and outcome
Mr. Martin received a cardiac catheterization and stent placement at the hospital and later developed some complications after being discharged. After the placing if the cardiac catheterization and a stent in the coronary artery, the procedure was successful and Mr. Martin remained on admission and monitoring at the medical center for some time. He was on Plavix at that time.

Soon, the patient Mr. Martin was ready for discharge, and he had a registered nurse for the period he had been there. The nurse belonged to the medical center and was in charge of going through the discharge instructions. The instructions did not include an order or any information on Plavix from the physician so that the patient would be discharged with the medication.

Despite the RN releasing the discrepancies in the discharge instructions, the RN never contacted the physician to the patient. The discharge instructions indicated that Mr. Martin to take medication from fourteen to thirty days but was discharged home without any medication. Ten days after the discharge, Mr. Martin’s stent blocked and was readmitted. The lawsuit was filed by the patient indicating neglect on the RN’s side by neglecting and not notifying the physician of the discrepancies on the instruction.

Case Outcomes
A motion was filed by the Medical Centre to dismiss the case. The medical center alleged Mr. Martins’ witness reports never met the necessary rules for such reports, and the motion was granted by the trial court. Mr. Martin, therefore, appealed to the Texas Appeals Court. The decision by the trial court was reversed and therefore the case was to be heard again. The decision to reverse the case stated clearly that medical reports produced by Mr. Martin according to expert witness were not reviewed due to early dismissal.

Relationship to profession and personal practice
The above case is vital to the practice and profession as it indicates how vital information communication can be during a time a patient’s discharge or when they can possible face foreseeable and unreasonable risks towards being harmed. Profession negligence can be related to the nurse not communicating to the physician on how a patient is faring on during treatment and before discharge. The nurse failure to communicate fits or satisfies the element of a professional negligence action. It indicates that there is always a duty that is in existence between the nurse and patient. Besides, the act in Texas for nurses’ states that nurses are required to seek clarification of any information that they may have a reason to doubt or believe not to be accurate (Cherry & Jacob, 2014). The nurses are supposed to ensure the timely and appropriate provision of instructions. Therefore, such a case introduces the profession to a series of standards of care, standards of practice and acts that nurses are expected to abide.

There is an established duty that exists on the nurse side that they are supposed to follow. Failure to perform such duties, however, simple they may seem such as communicating amounts to the negligence of professional practice (Cherry & Jacob, 2014). Patients suffer unnecessary injuries and damages that could be avoided if the nurse had performed their duty according to the standards of the practice. The professional negligence brings about pain and suffering if patients that are unnecessary. The pain and suffering can be seen on instances of readmission and for the specific case, there was the blockage of the stent.

It is important for the nurses and other medical practitioners to never neglect their duties due to the established consequences. It leads to unnecessary pain and suffering to patients due to readmission and recurrence of medical conditions. In some worst-case scenarios, it can lead to loss of life. The duty of the nurses and other medical practitioners is to ensure that the patient treatment will yield the best possible outcomes and leaves nothing to chance. It has been the case during the fight against patient readmissions (Cherry & Jacob, 2014).