& explanation Generated by AI The case involves a 55-year-old female plaintiff with chronic renal failure who was undergoing dialysis at the defendant's facility. During the procedure, she suffered an infiltration of the access graft in her arm, causing fluid to escape from the vein into the surrounding tissues, resulting in pain. The plaintiff was hospitalized for the removal and replacement of the access graft. The plaintiff contended that the negligence of the dialysis nurse caused the infiltration and that the defendants should have called paramedics rather than an ambulance, which caused a delay in receiving emergency medical care. This delay, she claimed, resulted in additional physical and psychological pain. She also claimed that she is now physically disabled as a result of the infiltration, unable to work again, and has severe traumatic stress disorder. The defendants countered that infiltration is a known risk of dialysis and can occur even under the best care. They argued that the infiltration was recognized properly, and all treatment protocols were followed. They also stated that they provided proper medical care until the plaintiff left the facility, including removing the needle and applying ice and pressure. The defendants also noted that the plaintiff's personal physician was called immediately and instructed them to call an ambulance, not paramedics. They further argued that the plaintiff was already on disability due to her chronic renal failure and was unable to work. The plaintiff claimed damages for pain and disability. However, the court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants, meaning the judge decided in favor of the defendants before the case went to the jury. The trial lasted for seven days