Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The casualty officer, Dr. Banerjee, did not see them. He advised the nurse, over the phone, that they should go home and call their own doctors. One of them, Mr. Barnett, died about five hours later from arsenic poisoning. [2] [1] Mrs. Barnett sued the hospital for negligence. [2]
Thus, when a patient claims injury as the result of a medical professional's care, a malpractice case will most often be based upon one of three theories: [10] Failure to diagnose: a medical professional is alleged to have failed to diagnose an existing medical condition, or to have provided an incorrect diagnoses for the patient's medical ...
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a ...
Jackson v. Indiana: Due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed." Reasoning that if commitment is for treatment and betterment of individuals, it must be accompanied by adequate treatment, several lower courts recognized a due process right ...
Asante Rogue Regional Medical Center is being sued by 18 former patients who claim the hospital's 'negligence' caused unnecessary pain or death. Families claim Oregon nurse replaced fentanyl drips ...
Most cases begin in local circuit courts, where the initial trial is held and a jury decides the outcome of the case. The circuit court decision can be appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals or the Indiana Tax Court, who can hear the case or enforce the lower court's decision. If the parties still disagree with the outcome of the case, they ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Canterbury v. Spence (464 F.2d. 772, 782 D.C. Cir. 1972) was a landmark federal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that significantly reshaped malpractice law in the United States. [1] [2] It established the idea of "informed consent" to medical procedures.