# data[].attributes.body
We had decided to research legal argument from the most supreme federal law in the United States, which was the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
In section one of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." While the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution will not be the basis for Smith's claim against Weathers, it does support her claim in an extremely broad sense. The State has an obligation to pursue action against Weathers for violating Smith's right to life, which in this case is the right to receive proper medical treatment for her injuries.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smith v. Weathers - U.S. Code & the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

# data[].attributes.subject
Smith v. Weathers - U.S. Code & the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

# data[].attributes.body
After reviewing the U.S. Code and the FCRP, there was nothing relevant that pertains to this particular case to cite.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smith v. Weathers - Kentucky Constitution

# data[].attributes.subject
Smith v. Weathers - Kentucky Constitution

# data[].attributes.body
Next, we decided to seek legal argument from the Kentucky Constitution, which would help in narrowing down the specific statutes, regulations, and procedures that the State of Kentucky has regarding the accusations presented in Smith's case, and if she is entitled to compensation.

# data[].attributes.body
In Section 14 of the Kentucky Constitution, it states that “All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.” Again, whilst very broad, Section 14 of the Kentucky Constitution does protect Smith’s right to seek legal action against Weathers for her injuries, and that her particular case is perfectly valid in its premise. Section 14 also entitles Smith to receive monetary compensation for her injuries.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smith v. Weathers - Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated

# data[].attributes.subject
Smith v. Weathers - Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated

# data[].attributes.body
Next, we decided to review the Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotations in order to find anything in the KRS regarding medical negligence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smith v. Weathers - Good Samaritan Provisions

# data[].attributes.subject
Smith v. Weathers - Good Samaritan Provisions

# data[].attributes.body
We searched for keywords related to this case that would help us find the appropriate statutes to cite, namely "Negligence". Under the Negligence section, there was a subsection titled "Physicians and surgeons". Under that, "Limitation of Actions" (KRS 413.140) was found to be especially relevant to this case, as explained in the following post.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smith v. Weathers - Kentucky Revised Statutes

# data[].attributes.subject
Smith v. Weathers - Kentucky Revised Statutes

# data[].attributes.body
Section A, which states "An action for an injury to the person of the plaintiff, or of her husband, his wife, child, ward, apprentice, or servant;", and Section E, which states "An action against a physician, surgeon, dentist, or hospital licensed pursuant to KRS Chapter 216, for negligence or malpractice;" are relevant to Smith's case, and she had also filed her claim against Weathers within one year of the incident, so the statutory limit Smith had to file her negligence claim had not been exceeded.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smith v. Weathers - Kentucky Practice: Tort Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Smith v. Weathers - Kentucky Practice: Tort Law

# data[].attributes.body
Next, we needed to know if Weather's actions actually constituted as medical negligence, and whether he could be held liable for the damages caused to Smith according to the regulations of the State of Kentucky. Section 10:17 was certainly of interest.

# data[].attributes.body
Section 10:17 essentially states that it is not the job of the courts to decide the proper standard of care that the practitioner is expected to carry out. Instead, it is the job of the medical community (including the practitioner) to uphold the proper standard of care themselves, and that the failure to uphold the standard of care should make the practitioner liable for any damages that result from their negligence; the same type of negligence that Weathers has reflected, which resulted in Smith's injuries.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smith v. Weathers - Kentucky Digest 2d Index

# data[].attributes.subject
Smith v. Weathers - Kentucky Digest 2d Index

# data[].attributes.body
Next, we reviewed the Kentucky Digest 2d Index in order to search for case law to support Smith's case. We searched for keywords like "negligence". According to the index, medical negligence was located in the Health section generally.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smith v. Weathers - Kentucky Digest 2d 13: Hawkers and Peddlers to Homicide.

# data[].attributes.subject
Smith v. Weathers - Kentucky Digest 2d 13: Hawkers and Peddlers to Homicide.

# data[].attributes.body
Jones v. Furnell (406 S.W.2d 154) in particular was exceedingly relevant to Smith's case. We decided to look into it in further detail.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smith v Weathers - Jones v. Furnell (406 S.W. 2d 154)

# data[].attributes.subject
Smith v Weathers - Jones v. Furnell (406 S.W. 2d 154)

# data[].attributes.body
This case was interesting, because it was rejected during its appeal because it had exceeded the statutory limit of one year after the incident. (KRS 413.140) However, it was shown that the surgeon, Dr. Furnell, did in fact commit medical negligence to Jones, but not malpractice. The Appellants attempted to bring Illinois law into this case which was ultimately rejected by the court. Had Jones simply filed the claim against Dr. Furnell sooner, the case may have gone in her favor and she would not have had to cite legal argument from a different state entirely. By contrast, Smith's case is not barred by KRS 414.130, and shows legal merit.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smith v. Weathers - City of Bowling Green Code of Ordinances

# data[].attributes.subject
Smith v. Weathers - City of Bowling Green Code of Ordinances

# data[].attributes.body
After reviewing the City of Bowling Green Code of Ordinances, there was nothing relevant that pertains to this particular case to cite.