shift is wild

125 decisions · 1985–2026 · every one linked

What a chart looks like in court

The decisions this guide actually quotes — not legal theory, but what the record showed when somebody went back and read it: the entry that was missing, the one that said too little, the time that did not match.

337 opinions were read to get to these 125. The rest turned up in the same searches and said nothing useful, so they are not here; each article lists the full set it was built from. We summarise, and the link on every case goes to the opinion itself — that is the thing to rely on.

How a note is read

Mike Scottman v. Emory Healthcare, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2025 #

The opinion describes IV assessments at 0600 and 0700 documenting no redness, swelling, or drainage. Swelling and inflammation were then observed around shift change. The parents initially alleged that hourly observations and notes were missing. The nursing records contradicted that theory. The appellate court affirmed judgment for Emory. Its analysis included defects in the plaintiffs’ expert affidavits. Among them: the medical records underlying the opinions were absent from the court record. The ruling did not establish that a documented normal assessment can never miss a problem. Neither case establishes that a particular correction or addendum would have changed the outcome.

Explained in: Words that get read back to you in a deposition · Chart what you know and name what you do not

United States v. Eskender Getachew

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025 #

The court described identical examination notes at every appointment for each patient named in the indictment. It also described identical menstrual-cycle observations in notes for all the named male patients. The court said this evidence allowed an inference that the physician routinely failed to examine patients. The court affirmed his conviction for unauthorized controlled-substance prescribing based on a broader record of evidence. It did not rule that copying text alone establishes a crime. The point here is narrower: repeating the exam language did not necessarily mean repeating the exam.

Explained in: Copied notes and why they stop meaning anything

Manter v. CPF Senior Living – Northgate Park L.L.C.

Ohio Court of Appeals · 2024 #

The opinion describes an unexplained gap in nursing notes and missing bathing documentation. Staff also described stand-by bathing assistance differently. The appellate court reversed part of the judgment, including the ruling on the contract claim. Factual disputes remained about the care needed and received. That does not mean the court found that missing notes caused the resident’s injury. The practical point is narrower: when the record does not say what assistance actually happened, it leaves uncertainty about the care.

if Paul was noncompliant with bathing, that was something she would expect to see in the nursing notes.

Explained in: Words that get read back to you in a deposition · Chart what you know and name what you do not

Ochoa v. Avila

Texas Court of Appeals, Eighth District · 2024 #

A physician cosigned a PA’s chart with the notation “I agree with the assessment and care plan, and confirm the diagnosis(es).” His counsel described it as template language. The appellate court affirmed denial of summary judgment on the limited question of whether a physician–patient relationship existed. It did not decide malpractice liability. This was a physician case, not a ruling on RN cosignatures. The point here is narrower: template wording can describe involvement that you later have to explain.

Explained in: Words that get read back to you in a deposition

Currie v. Oneida Health Sys., Inc.

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department · 2023 #

The court found factual disputes that kept the remaining ordinary-negligence allegations from being dismissed before trial. One was about supervision. The defense expert described continuous one-to-one supervision beginning December 7, but nursing notes still indicated 15-minute safety checks until December 9, after an unwitnessed December 8 fall. That was not a final finding of negligence. The charting point is this: a supervision plan, a staffing request, and supervision actually provided are not the same thing. Don’t chart them as if they are.

Explained in: Words that get read back to you in a deposition · Chart the teamwork without charting the blame

Mapes v. State of Louisiana

, Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit · 2022 #

The opinion describes a critically low platelet count that the laboratory communicated to a nurse. The facility’s protocol required the nurse to notify the physician verbally, too. The record gave no indication that this happened. The appellate court reversed summary judgment for the hospital and sent the case back for further proceedings. That was not a final determination that the communication failure caused the patient’s death. This case is about critical-result notification, not how to label a preliminary result. The distinction that matters here is receiving a result and communicating it onward. Chart them separately. One does not stand in for the other.

Explained in: What to write when a lab result is unclear

Michael Miller v. Lone Star HMA, L.P., and Mesquite HMA General, LLC

Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District, Dallas · 2018 #

Miller alleged that insufficient nursing documentation of surgical-wound drainage contributed to his premature discharge. But no evidence established what the missing drainage information would have shown. The court upheld the exclusion of the causation expert’s testimony as unsupported and speculative. With no other causation evidence left, it affirmed summary judgment for the hospital entities. The missing piece was evidence connecting the alleged charting omissions to the injury. The ruling did not mean the undocumented observations were normal.

Explained in: What WNL leaves out

Sevan (Bjorklund) Cappuccilli v. David A. Carcieri, M.D., d/b/a Medical Office of David A. Carcieri, M.D.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2017 #

The patient used several medical records to support her account of an ovarian-vein injury during surgery. A physician challenged the accuracy of some records and testified that some entries had been copied and pasted. The court affirmed the judgment for the defendants. The criticism of copied entries came from a witness. It was not a blanket court finding that copied notes are false. The documentation question was whether the repeated statements accurately described what happened, not how many places they appeared.

Explained in: Copied notes and why they stop meaning anything

**West Fraser, Inc. v. Caldwell**

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2012 #

The appellate court reversed an order finding the injury compensable, and the opinion discusses conflicting accounts and medical-record language

The medical records from Auburn Urgent Care, dated December 17, 2009, state that the employee complained chiefly of back pain radiating down his right leg “x 1 week” and that his pain was “aggravated by movement no inj.”

Explained in: Before You Sign an AI Drafted Nursing Note

Estate of Guillotte ex rel. Jordan v. Delta Health Group, Inc.

, Mississippi Supreme Court · 2009 #

The opinion describes expert testimony about staff reviewing a resident’s weight loss and starting measures, but not adequately following through as the resident’s nutritional condition kept deteriorating. It also discusses expert testimony about gaps in documentation across several areas of care. The court found summary judgment improper for claims based on individual staff negligence, but proper for the corporate-negligence claims. That was not a final determination of liability. The point for your charting: starting an intervention is not the same as checking whether it is working. Show the follow-through.

Explained in: Your note should not stop at the intervention

Benefield v. Sibley

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · 2008 #

The opinion describes conflicting accounts of attempts to reach a physician about a patient’s breathing difficulty. The nurse testified that she first relied on a call the previous nurse had reportedly made. That call was not in the earlier nursing notes. Other claimed contact attempts were undocumented too. The appellate court affirmed the verdict finding that the nurse breached the standard of care and caused a lost chance of survival. The lesson is not that every missing entry proves care was missed. A reported earlier call, a request for someone to call, and a completed conversation are different events. Keep them separate in your note.

Explained in: Chart the teamwork without charting the blame

**Harris v. Casino Magic**

Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2004 #

The court reversed and remanded after the claim had been rejected, and the opinion treated gaps in early medical documentation as important context

the five-month period of time that elapsed between the date of the accident and the first medical record of complaints regarding the injury.

Explained in: Before You Sign an AI Drafted Nursing Note

Lama Romero v. Asociacion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994 #

After spinal surgery, nursing notes documented bloody or soiled dressings and incision-site pain. The opinion explained that the hospital’s exception-charting approach gave a less complete picture of the patient’s changing condition: nurses recorded qualitative observations only when changes were important. They still recorded routine quantitative data, including temperature. The First Circuit affirmed the malpractice verdict against the physician and hospital. It agreed with the trial court’s reasoning that the way the records were kept could support a finding of careless postoperative monitoring. That decision was about this hospital’s records and care. It did not reject every CBE system.

Explained in: What WNL leaves out

Time, and what it proves

Wiese v. Riverton Memorial Hospital, LLC

, Wyoming Supreme Court · 2022 #

The opinion describes nursing entries on a fetal monitoring strip for 8:15–8:20 a.m. that were actually created at 4:06–4:08 p.m. the same day. Roughly eight hours separated the event times from the creation times. The court held that audit trails qualified as health care information under the applicable, now-repealed Wyoming statute. It reversed the judgment for the hospital and sent the case back for further proceedings because factual questions remained about compliance with the records law. This was a records-disclosure decision. It was not a malpractice verdict about delayed charting. The point for your charting: a record can show both the time assigned to an observation and the later time when you entered it.

Explained in: When You Charted Is Not When It Happened · The chart remembers more than your note

Mississippi State Board of Nursing v. Robin Mack

Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 2021 #

The documentation charges included a disputed record of a face-to-face encounter after the nurse practitioner had left a cancellation message. The nursing board imposed probation. The chancery court reversed that decision, and the appellate court affirmed the reversal because the board’s decision lacked substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. This decision did not establish intentional chart falsification. Keep that distinction clear: an accusation about documentation is not the same as what the evidence supports.

Explained in: Correct the record without rewriting the past

The Anthem Companies, Inc. v. Cheryl Wills

Supreme Court of Georgia · 2019 #

This case involved photographs, not a nursing chart. Paper prints were lost, but digital versions were still available. The court reversed sanctions for failure to preserve evidence. The record did not support a finding that Anthem had altered the images it received. The connection to charting is narrow but useful. Losing a duplicate, keeping an electronic original, and altering evidence are different things. This decision does not give you permission to change a patient record after an incident.

Explained in: Correct the record without rewriting the past

Gilbert v. Highland Hospital

, New York Supreme Court · 2016 #

The court ordered production of an audit trail because the allegations made it relevant to know whether an emergency department attending had reviewed the patient’s electronic record and care plan before discharge. The court also made clear what the audit trail couldn't show: physician actions that didn't involve accessing or viewing the electronic record. Chart activity can help piece together a timeline. It doesn't capture all bedside care.

Explained in: When You Charted Is Not When It Happened

Healthcare Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Wilkinson Ex Rel. Wilkinson

District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2009 #

The nurse testified that she usually moved information from informal notes into patient charts, then threw the notes away. The hospital argued that this patient’s chart and flowsheet were essentially blank. The appellate court held that the trial court was wrong to apply a presumption of negligence based on the missing notes. But it found that error harmless because other evidence supported the negligence finding. It reversed on a separate allocation-of-fault issue. The ruling didn’t approve or prohibit any particular late-entry format.

Explained in: Adding a Missed Note Without Rewriting the Past

Caminero v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005 #

The records included a discharge-summary addendum describing a pulse-oximeter-related foot injury. The appellate court relied on hospital records made at the time to find that the hospital already knew the essential facts of the claim. It reinstated the complaint. The late notice in this case concerned filing a claim—not a nursing late entry. The decision didn’t set rules for how you should enter an addendum.

Explained in: Adding a Missed Note Without Rewriting the Past

People v. Rowjee

Appellate Court of Illinois · 1999 #

The opinion describes a public aid billing review where billed service dates were compared with patient charts. This line shows the issue clearly: “People's Exhibit S-1 purports to list days where defendant billed where there was no matching documentation by defendant in the patient's chart.” For charting, keep it simple: if the billing trail says a service happened, the care record needs to show what actually happened.

Explained in: When the Billable Visit Did Not Happen

Commonwealth

State Board of Nurse Examiners v. Rafferty, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985 #

The court reviewed a nurse discipline matter involving conduct around resuscitation and documentation of rhythm evidence

It was undisputed that the cardiac monitor strip documenting the rare PVCs was not attached to the patient’s chart.

Explained in: Charting During a Code When Your Hands Were Full

When it goes sideways

**Ex parte Air Evac EMS, Inc.**

Supreme Court of Alabama · 2025 #

Link: The amended complaint alleged ketamine had been removed and replaced with saline before transport. One allegation was failure to “properly document in the medical records that [Earnest] was administered a dosage of ketamine that was believed to have been tampered with or otherwise compromised”. The court dealt with limitations and relation-back issues. The bedside point is simple: if you think a medication may be compromised, the chart needs the concrete facts.

Explained in: When a Syringe or Vial Looks Wrong Before You Give It

**State v. Vaughn**

Ohio Court of Appeals · 2025 #

Link: This was not a medication-administration case, but it shows how container condition, collection steps, and transfer details can matter later. The court wrote: “Here, we find the State substantially complied with the regulation because appellant's urine was collected in a clean, single-use, cardboard bedpan and transferred into the appropriate plastic container from the OVI test kit immediately after.”

Explained in: When a Syringe or Vial Looks Wrong Before You Give It

Commonwealth v. Amanda K. Berube

Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2025 #

The opinion described an automated dispenser, a morphine vial, charted administration, and no waste report for unused morphine. The court affirmed the conviction for possession of a class A substance.

If the entire contents of a vial were not used, the nurse was supposed to empty the unused contents into a secure container and submit a waste report witnessed by another nurse.

Explained in: Charting Controlled Substance Waste Clearly

UHS of Delaware, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2025 #

The citation discussed in the opinion included: “Conduct an investigation and debriefing after each act of workplace violence with the attacked and/or injured employee and other involved employees, including root cause or similar analysis, lessons learned, and corrective actions to prevent reoccurrence.”

Explained in: When a patient hits you and the shift keeps going

Dana Casnocha-Jones v. State Board of Nursing

Missouri Court of Appeals · 2024 #

The record shows why the waste witness needs to see the actual waste process, not just look at a container afterward.

She would re-fill the vial with an identical amount of a saline solution, and would show the vial to another nurse, who would confirm that it contained the appropriate amount of residual liquid.

Explained in: Charting Controlled Substance Waste Clearly

Robert D. Toler v. Cornerstone Hospital of Huntington, LLC

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · 2023 #

A hospital visitor fell, sustained a fracture, and later sought the incident report. The appellate court upheld protection of the report under the peer-review privilege. The legal test reproduced in the decision focused on exactly where the document came from and how it was used. Not just what it was called. The nurse who prepared the report could still testify about what he personally knew of the fall’s circumstances. Protecting the report did not prevent testimony about independently known facts. This was not a ruling that a chart reference destroyed protection.

Explained in: Keep the incident report out of the patient chart

Black v. Ohio Bd. of Nursing

Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022 #

The appellate court affirmed a judgment that upheld the nursing board's suspension of a nurse's license for infractions involving the care of two terminally ill patients. The decision describes the board's allegations that medications were given without documentation that the nurse questioned the orders or consulted other team members about their accuracy, validity, or potential harm. Separately, the hearing examiner found that, for Patient I, the nurse had failed to question the order or communicate concerns about potential harm to another team member. Missing documentation is one issue. Failure to communicate is another. Both appear in the decision. See paragraphs 1, 10, and 15. This wasn't simply a case about a poorly chosen phrase in a note. It does not establish that better wording alone would have changed the outcome. Charting that an order existed is not the same as charting how you questioned it, who you consulted, and what you did next.

You administered these drugs to the patient without documenting that you questioned the order(s) and/or consulted with any member of the health care team regarding the accuracy/validity of or harmfulness to the patient of these order(s).

Explained in: When the Dose Was Given but the MAR Missed It · The order looked wrong and the doctor disagreed

Evans v. The Medical Center of Central Georgia

Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2021 #

In this emergency-department case, the plaintiff’s experts pointed to an incomplete triage form, failures to communicate relevant findings, and failures to advocate for further evaluation among the alleged nursing shortcomings. The physician could not remember whether, before discharge, he had seen the report documenting some of the patient’s symptoms. The appellate court reversed summary judgment for the nurse and hospital because the evidence raised a factual question about causation. That was not a final finding of malpractice. For your documentation, the distinction matters: recording a symptom and communicating it are two separate things.

Explained in: What to chart when the provider does not call back

Adventist Healthcare v. Mattingly

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2020 #

The opinion describes a postoperative patient whose abdominal symptoms worsened, followed later by abnormal vital signs. His surgeon gave orders at first, then said he was coming. He had not arrived when the patient became unconscious. The claim against the hospital included an allegation that the nurse failed to escalate under hospital policy. A jury returned a verdict against the hospital and surgeon. The appellate court affirmed. It explained that the expert testimony, taken together with the other evidence, was enough to establish causation and let the claim go to the jury. The point here is the difference between contacting a provider and getting a response to a patient’s ongoing deterioration. It is not about a particular charting phrase.

Explained in: What to chart when the provider does not call back

Henning v. Avera McKennan

South Dakota Supreme Court · 2020 #

The hospital tracked controlled-substance removals, administration documentation, waste, and unaccounted medication. The nurse was terminated after documentation errors and inability to account for controlled substances; the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the hospital.

Avera McKennan Hospital terminated Stephanie Henning, a nurse in its intensive care unit, after it discovered errors in Henning’s documentation of controlled substances.

Explained in: Charting Controlled Substance Waste Clearly · When the Patient Says the Charted Pain Dose Was Not Given

John S. Zablotny v. State Board of Nursing

, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2017 #

The patient signed AMA paperwork and left the hospital on foot in blizzard-like conditions. The trial court found that the nurse had engaged in unprofessional conduct by failing to give accurate and complete information about the risks of leaving. Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that judgment. But the court did not find against the nurse on every allegation. The trial court also found that the Board had not proved the separate alleged violations involving incomplete information to the physician and failure to immediately notify police or the emergency contact. Those findings remained in place. See paragraphs 1 and 13–14. The decision also describes a day-shift report with suicidal comments that had not been properly placed in the patient’s chart. The nurse found it after the patient left, then made calls. That is the documentation gap: the information had been written down somewhere, but it wasn’t available when the departure decision was made. See paragraph 9. This case was about care and communication—not whether a particular charting verb was acceptable.

Explained in: Documenting a refusal so the note tells the whole story

Nielson v. SwedishAmerican Hospital

Appellate Court of Illinois · 2017 #

Three nurses wrote quality control reports after a surgical injury. The reports went through risk management and later ended up in a discovery fight in litigation. The decision text described a hospital policy stating that a “QCR may serve as a report to legal counsel to assist in the defense of a lawsuit or claim.”

Explained in: When Risk Management Calls You In to Just Talk

Stewart v. Vivian

Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016 #

The record described 15-minute checks, staff observations, agitation, unusual behavior, and communication about observation level after a suicide attempt in an inpatient psychiatric setting. The court affirmed judgment for the physician.

During this conversation, Dr. Vivian ordered that Michelle be placed on "15-minute checks," a level of observation that required a hospital staff member to visually check on Michelle every 15 minutes.

Explained in: Charting Suicide Precautions So the Record Shows Actual Observation

Gabriel v. County of Herkimer

District Court, N.D. New York · 2012 #

The court record included complaints that medications were wrong, a MAR, a narcotics list, and security-log inconsistencies. This is the type of record where clear medication documentation and follow-up matter.

The Narcotics List also indicates DiCamillo was administered an 8:30 p.m. dose of Clonazepam but this was not documented in the Security Log or the Medication Administration Record.

Explained in: When the Patient Says the Charted Pain Dose Was Not Given · When the Dose Was Given but the MAR Missed It

Estate of Wells v. Bureau County, District Court

C.D. Illinois · 2010 #

The opinion describes checks where staff could not actually see the person in the cell. The motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

During her checks, Keefer personally observed the detainees in two of the cells in Cellblock 2 because she could see them from the guard walkway, but did not observe Wells in his cell because she was unable to see into his cell from the guard walkway.

Explained in: Charting Suicide Precautions So the Record Shows Actual Observation

Tucker Nursing Center, Inc. v. Mosby

Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2010 #

The appellate court affirmed the judgment and found no abuse of discretion in admitting CNA testimony about staffing, supplies, and care during the resident’s stay. That testimony connected insufficient staffing to inadequate turning and repositioning. It also addressed what the facility knew about the conditions and complaints. This was testimony, not an ADO form. The point here is the connection between specific working conditions, a resident’s care needs, and notice to management. The court did not find that an objection form protects an individual nurse.

Explained in: Where to document an assignment you objected to

Zander v. Craig Hospital

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado · 2010 #

A patient alleged that negligence during spinal surgery caused paralysis. The hospital claimed protection for investigative material, arguing broadly that its approved quality-management program protected all discussions about medical care. The court rejected that position. The decision explains that protection covered information resulting from activities described in the state-approved program. Documents that existed independently of those activities could still be obtained from their original sources through discovery. Conversations outside the qualifying process weren’t protected, either. The distinction was about the source and the process. It wasn’t about a nurse writing one sentence about filing a report.

Explained in: Keep the incident report out of the patient chart

Davis v. Louisiana State Board of Practical Nurse Examiners

, Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2009 #

The opinion describes complaints that included hydrocodone entries in the controlled-substance record with no corresponding MAR entries. The court upheld the Board’s license revocation based on a broader record involving multiple facilities and other practice concerns. This was not a canceled-dose case. You can't attribute the outcome to one documentation mismatch. The connection here is narrower: unless you complete both accurately, the controlled-substance record and the MAR can tell different stories.

Explained in: You pulled the medication but never gave it · When the Medication Is Not on the MAR

Jones v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005 #

The opinion involved a psychiatric technician assigned to suicide watch checks while also assigned to continuous observation of another patient. The court reversed the neglect conviction; the separate record-falsification conviction was not appealed. In charting terms: do not document a check as completed if it was not completed.

Explained in: Charting Suicide Precautions So the Record Shows Actual Observation

Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Usrey

Court of Appeals of Texas · 2001 #

This case involved Texas health care workers who had needlesticks and sought reimbursement for post-needlestick testing costs. The proposed class definition partly depended on whether the stick was recorded close to when it happened.

Reported the stick as shown by an accident report, medical record, or other record kept at or within a reasonable time after the stick occurred.

Explained in: You Got Stuck and the Clock Started

Babich v. Waukesha Memorial Hospital, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1996 #

A patient was punctured by a needle left in hospital linens. The court’s discussion turned on what people knew, and did not know, about the needle and the possible source of contamination.

While Pamela Babich was a patient at Waukesha Memorial Hospital, Inc., she was stuck with a hypodermic needle that was mistakenly left in her bed linens.

Explained in: You Got Stuck and the Clock Started

Barrett v. Danbury Hospital

Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995 #

This was a blood-exposure case, not a staff needlestick case. Still useful for charting habits. The record included an expert criticism that the chart missed timing and skin-condition details.

failed to include the times the rectal exams were done and did not contain a description of the patient’s buttocks, particularly whether it was examined for fissures or scratches.

Explained in: You Got Stuck and the Clock Started

Other people in your chart

**Sobalvarro v. Vibra Health Care**

California Court of Appeal · 2026 #

A patient who was unable to move or speak alleged sexual assault during a hospitalization where a CNA provided peri care and bed baths. The jury found negligence against the hospital entities. The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the appellate court reversed. The record included evidence about intimate care assignments, whether patient preferences about male or female attendants were asked, and family observations around closed-door changing

Explained in: Charting Chaperones During Intimate Care

State v. Adam Rowell

Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2022 #

Timing mattered here. So did the audit trail, who handled the specimen, and the normal hospital process after the blood sample was challenged

Smith did not remember receiving this sample specifically because of the large number of specimens he regularly tested.

Explained in: When Police Ask for Blood or Records

STATE OF FLORIDA v. ROBERT THOMAS TAVENESE

District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2021 #

This one dealt with emergency room records and toxicology reports sought by subpoena after a DUI-related crash

Finally, we note HIPAA does not prevent the State from subpoenaing relevant medical records in a criminal proceeding, contrary to Respondent’s argument at the hearing.

Explained in: When Police Ask for Blood or Records

State v. Romano

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2019 #

The record described an impaired-driving patient, an attempted consent discussion, a blood sample, and later use of hospital medical records

Before accepting the blood sample, Sergeant Fowler attempted to get defendant’s consent to the blood draw or receipt of the evidence, but she was unable to wake him.

Explained in: When Police Ask for Blood or Records

Francis v. Delaware Board of Nursing

Superior Court of Delaware · 2018 #

During a shift-change medication count, a nurse spilled 12 Sovaldi tablets, discarded them into a sharps container, and recorded the disposal on a usage log. The opinion describes a later log update after the tablets were retrieved and returned to the bottle. What the pharmacists knew and how they took part in the decision became disputed issues in the disciplinary proceedings. The court reversed the Board’s disciplinary decision because it found insufficient evidence to support it. The supplied text does not say the log led to that reversal. This was a disciplinary appeal, not a ruling on required handoff-note fields. Don’t read it as a clinical recommendation to retrieve or reuse discarded medication.

Explained in: What the handoff note has to carry

Watkins v. Central State Griffin Memorial Hospital

, Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016 #

The record contained conflicting accounts of whether a physician had given an order before an examination. There was no written order for that examination in the chart. The court held that factual disputes involving allegedly withheld information made summary adjudication improper. The ruling concerned the claim deadline and disputed information. It didn't say that a particular read-back phrase would settle an order dispute.

Explained in: Writing down verbal orders and the read-back line

State v. Robinson

Ohio Court of Appeals · 2012 #

The court affirmed the convictions and sent the sentencing issue back for resentencing. The opinion discussed the hospital exam, patient statements, intoxication, swabs, and physical findings. “A nurse gave her a sexual assault exam during which the nurse took a swab of her vagina.”

Explained in: When Your Assessment May Become Evidence

W. Frank Wells Nursing Home v. State, Agency for Health Care Administration

, District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011 #

The opinion drew a distinction between the first verbal order, for an emergency-room mental evaluation, and a later verbal order to transfer the resident to a state hospital. The court set aside the facility’s citation because the undisputed facts didn't establish the cited statutory violation. The scope of that first order mattered: a general mental evaluation wasn't the same instruction as an involuntary examination.

Explained in: Writing down verbal orders and the read-back line

**Department of Human Services v. Hale**

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2008 #

A neglect investigation involved Foley care, vaginal or perineal monitoring, the resident’s condition on hospital arrival, and documentation. After an administrative hearing, the hearing officer found that the facility did not abuse or neglect the resident. The appellate court reversed the circuit court and held that substantial evidence supported the hearing officer’s determination

Explained in: Charting Chaperones During Intimate Care

**Hart v. Celaya**

District Court, N.D. California · 2008 #

In a prison setting involving an unclothed body search and decontamination, the record discussed policy, timing, who was present, the search steps, and holding-cell welfare logs. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants

Explained in: Charting Chaperones During Intimate Care

State v. Toomes

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2005 #

The court affirmed an aggravated rape conviction, and the opinion discussed medical records, nursing notes, lab work, the rape kit, and evidence transfer. “Ms. Bullard testified that she was trained to document all of her lab work and activities to establish an accurate chain of custody.”

Explained in: When Your Assessment May Become Evidence

Spragg v. Shore Care

New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · 1996 #

This case involved a male certified home health aide who challenged a home health employer’s gender-based assignment practice tied to female patients refusing male aides. The charting point is simple: when an assignment changes because a patient or family objects to the caregiver, the facts in the record matter.

Explained in: When Bias Changes Who Gives Care

When it already happened

Estate of Eden v. Goldstein

Ohio Court of Appeals · 2024 #

The trial court ordered a virtual inspection of the patient’s electronic records, subject to protective arrangements. At a compliance hearing, the defendants produced portions of unredacted audit trails and access logs. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It did not decide whether malpractice or record alteration had occurred. The records inquiry went beyond the printed note and into the underlying electronic system.

Explained in: The chart remembers more than your note

Hutchinson, B. v. Verstraeten, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023 #

The patients alleged that records had been altered and obtained an order for a complete, unredacted audit trail. The trial court, however, excluded testimony from their proposed health-information-technology expert. The appellate court affirmed the defense judgment because the appeal did not establish an abuse of discretion. Audit information was requested and disputed. That did not turn the alteration allegations into established facts.

Explained in: The chart remembers more than your note

Nuvasive, Inc. v. Absolute Medical, LLC

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2023 #

In a medical-device business dispute, discovery turned up texts sent to a witness while he was testifying in an arbitration. His testimony appeared to match answers suggested in those messages. The district court set aside the arbitration award on fraud grounds. The appellate court affirmed. The lesson is narrow: messages outside the formal proceeding became evidence about what happened inside it. These were employment and business disputes. Neither means that every nursing worksheet, incident report, or secure chat must be disclosed.

Explained in: Your own notes are not automatically private

Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2023 #

A registered nurse brought employment claims against her hospital and supervisors. One central piece of evidence was an image she said showed text messages from a supervisor. The district court found that she fabricated the messages, testified falsely about how they were created, and failed to preserve evidence to conceal the fabrication. The examination covered the image’s technical characteristics, its metadata, and inconsistencies in her account of the phones involved. The appellate court upheld the dismissal and the sanction against the nurse. It vacated the sanctions against her attorneys and sent that issue back because the wrong legal standard had been applied. This was not a nurse being penalized simply for saving messages. The case concerned fabrication, false testimony, and the handling of original evidence. Keep that distinction clear.

Explained in: Your own notes are not automatically private

Erin Reding v. Lubbock County Hospital District d/b/a University Medical Center

Texas Court of Appeals, Seventh District · 2020 #

Reding, an RN, reported concerns about a proposed mandatory on-call policy to the hospital’s legal department after human resources referred her there. The court affirmed dismissal of her Texas Whistleblower Act claim. Under that statute, the internal legal department was not an appropriate law-enforcement authority, and her belief that it qualified was not objectively reasonable. This was an employment-reporting case, not a ruling on bedside charting. The lesson here is narrow: documenting that you went up the internal ladder doesn't automatically give you a separate legal protection. Clinical escalation and statutory reporting protections are different questions.

Explained in: Going up the ladder so it counts

Howell v. Park E. Care & Rehab.

Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018 #

The appellate court reversed and remanded for an in camera review of disputed documents. The bedside lesson is simple: ordinary facility records can become the thing everyone fights over

Documents relative to [L.W.], including nursing home chart, medical records, physician notes, nurse statements and notes, progress notes, documentation of activities of daily living, assessment reports, incident/accident reports, physical therapy, administration of narcotics, dietary records, communications about [L.W.], etc.

Explained in: When the family is recording and taking notes

Christus Health Gulf Coast d/b/a Christus St. John Hospital, and Christus St. John Hospital v. Alison Davidson

Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District · 2016 #

The opinion describes expert reports that acknowledged some calls and physician read-backs. Those reports also criticized failures to follow up and escalate. The nursing expert’s criticisms included: > Nurses did not timely notify the rapid-response team, nurse manager or nurse director. That was an expert’s allegation summarized in the opinion. It was not a final finding of negligence. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the expert report did not adequately explain causation. Here's the distinction to keep in mind: evidence that some communication happened doesn't tell you what happened when nobody responded or the patient kept deteriorating.

Explained in: Going up the ladder so it counts

Dailey v. Methodist Medical Center

Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 2001 #

The opinion described alleged events that included a disputed infusion-rate entry and changing explanations to the family after the wrong medication was discovered. The family received reassurance that the medication was harmless, a possible labeling explanation, and a later apology. The appellate court reversed the summary judgments and remanded for trial. It did not make a final finding of liability. This case isn't a nursing-note template. It shows why your note needs to distinguish what was observed, what someone explained, and what was clarified later. A notification statement loses those distinctions.

Explained in: Charting the conversation after a medication error

The shift itself

Linson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Ohio Court of Claims · 2024 #

This nurse’s leave history was part of the written record: Why you care: if you submit the paperwork and the employer approves it, keep that approval. People may need it later to piece together what happened.

Plaintiff submitted all the appropriate Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) paperwork when necessary and Defendant approved every request.

Explained in: Family leave without leaving a hole in your record

Schwenzfeier v. St. Peter's Health Partners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023 #

Nursing notes were compared with provider observations during review of the patient’s hospital course

Although there was a discrepancy between the nursing notes and Price's observations of decedent during her initial consult

Explained in: Your Name Is on the Lawsuit

Shahnaz Poursaied v. Tennessee Board of Nursing

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2021 #

The Tennessee court affirmed the chancery court in a reciprocal license discipline case. The written statement to the travel nurse agency was one of the materials introduced in the administrative proceeding.

The Department proceeded by introducing into evidence a certified copy of the CA Board’s administrative order revoking Ms. Poursaied’s California registered nurse license, an unsworn written statement from Ms. Poursaied to her travel nurse agency defending herself against the California charges, and affidavits from two administrative directors for the Board.

Explained in: When Risk Management Asks You for a Written Statement

**David v. Queen of the Valley Medical Center**

California Court of Appeal · 2020 #

A registered nurse brought meal, rest, off-the-clock charting, and rounding claims. The court affirmed summary judgment for the hospital. The opinion describes the hospital’s missed-break process this way: “An employee who misses a meal or rest period must complete an “edit” or “correction” sheet, so QVMC can pay the employee a one-hour premium.”

Explained in: The break you didn’t get and the pay you didn’t see

Stubbs v. ICare Management, LLC

Connecticut Appellate Court · 2020 #

A CNA said she had been told not to report because the facility was overbooked with CNAs. The appellate court allowed parts of her employment claims to continue because there were factual disputes, including what happened around the alleged no call/no show Practical point: if someone tells you not to come in, get the name, role, and confirmation that this is a facility cancellation, not your call-out.

She testified that she had received a phone call from one of the defendants’ employees, whom she could not identify, telling her not to report to work on those dates because the defendants were overbooked with CNAs.

Explained in: Calling Out Without Giving Them a Write-Up to Build

Matson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Texas · 2019 #

The record included FMLA certifications, approval documents, return-to-work letters, and email. One item in the record was: Why you care: leave paperwork, provider letters, and email trails are not background noise. They become the timeline.

documents showing that Sanderson Farms granted Matson's FMLA leave

Explained in: Family leave without leaving a hole in your record

W.L. Ives, M.D. v. BPOA

State Board of Medicine, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2019 #

Why it matters here: transfer-of-care facts mattered, even outside nursing. If care was handed off, the record should say that plainly.

Dr. Kauffman did not know that Dr. Ives transferred Patient’s care in the ICU to another physician only because he had been called to an emergency at another hospital.

Explained in: Not Showing Up Is Not Patient Abandonment

Marvin Mead v. Charles Palmer

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2015 #

A nurse was one of the named defendants, and the record included nursing notes and health-service requests

The defendants’ appendix included transcripts of the depositions of Mead and dentist Timothy DeStigter; Mead’s dental records; and CCUSO documents, including Mead’s account statement, nursing notes, and a health-services request from Mead.

Explained in: Your Name Is on the Lawsuit

Nurse v. Lutheran Medical Center

District Court, E.D. New York · 2012 #

The court described a workplace dispute where written accounts became part of the record: “Both plaintiff and Ms. Garcia wrote to Ms. Schwimer, Ms. Daisley, and others relaying their version of the events.”

Explained in: When the Write Up Lands on You

Ruby Clinkscale v. St. Therese of New Hope

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012 #

Why it matters here: the employer’s wording became part of the later record. The cleaner your timeline, the less room you leave for vague labels.

On October 22, 2010, St. Therese registered a complaint regarding Clinkscale with the Minnesota Board of Nursing, alleging that Clinkscale had "refused work assignment & walked out."

Explained in: Not Showing Up Is Not Patient Abandonment

Cranford v. Louisiana State Board of Practical Nurse Examiners

Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2008 #

The opinion describes a facility investigation with a written statement, interviews, a facility report, the nurse’s written narrative, and objective information such as a blood glucose reading. The Board revoked the LPN license. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision upholding the Board.

L.P.N. Stacey Lowery made a formal written statement against Ms. Cranford, on the basis of which Ms. Ainsworth conducted an investigation.

Explained in: When Risk Management Asks You for a Written Statement

Primes v. State Board of Practical Nurse Examiners

Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2008 #

The opinion listed documentation-related allegations. It also noted that, for some older allegations, the record did not contain testimony or other evidence at the Board hearing. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s reversal of the Board order.

January 4, 2000: Mr. Primes was given a written warning for signing that he performed accuchecks, blood cultures, and administered antibiotics when he had not done so.

Explained in: When the Write Up Lands on You · When Risk Management Asks You for a Written Statement

Miller v. Tennessee Board of Nursing

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2007 #

Why it matters here: the nurse had already accepted patient responsibility. That is different from never coming in and never taking report.

There is no dispute that Ms. Miller accepted the obligation to care for four to five patients when she reported for work at Cookeville Regional Medical Center’s med/surg unit.

Explained in: Not Showing Up Is Not Patient Abandonment

Roark v. Pocahontas Nursing & Rehabilitation

Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2006 #

A CNA had previously requested days off, later returned on light duty, and was terminated after a no call/no show dispute. The court affirmed the Commission’s decision Practical point: a prior request-off note may not protect you if your assignment, supervisor, or return-to-work status changed.

Roark acknowledged that there was a rule that required employees to call into work at least two hours beforehand if they were going to be absent

Explained in: Calling Out Without Giving Them a Write-Up to Build

Whitlow v. Visiting Nurse Ass'n of Western NY

District Court, W.D. New York · 2005 #

The record showed intermittent leave approval and recertification terms: Why you care: intermittent leave is not just the first approval. Recertification dates, restrictions, and follow-up notes belong in your file.

In a memorandum dated May 7, 2001, the VNA notified plaintiff that her request for intermittent FMLA leave had been approved, subject to medical re-certification every thirty days

Explained in: Family leave without leaving a hole in your record

New decisions get added here

A job on this server reads new opinions every night. Once a month we send what turned up and what it changed — nothing else.

One email a month, and nothing else — no selling, no sharing. You confirm by clicking a link, so a typo cannot sign somebody else up. Unsubscribing deletes the address: we keep no list of people who left. What this site collects.

Where these came from

All of them are on CourtListener, which publishes court opinions in full and for free. They were found by searching for nursing records and read one at a time. Where only the docket entry was available and not the opinion, the case is not here at all — a decision nobody can open is not evidence, it is a citation.

Each case sits under the charting question it answers. If you came here because something already happened on your shift, start with the guide itself — the decisions are the footnotes, the articles are what to do.

Not legal advice. Your board, your state and your facility policy are what bind you. Written by a med-surg RN, ten years, day shift. Why there is no name on it.