Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 is a Scottish delict, medical negligence and English tort law case on doctors and pharmacists that outlines the rule on the disclosure of risks to satisfy the criteria of an informed consent.
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.
Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons v. California Medical Association, 224 Cal. App. 2d 378 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1964) was a legal case between two medical associations in the state of California. The case was under review in California state courts from 1962-1964.
The United States argued that they prescribed medication with no legitimate medical purpose; the doctors, however, argued that they were prescribing in accordance with standard medical practice. The doctors requested the judge to inform the jury that if they had acted in "good faith", they should not be guilty under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The ...
Clinical peer review, also known as medical peer review is the process by which health care professionals, including those in nursing and pharmacy, evaluate each other's clinical performance. [1] [2] A discipline-specific process may be referenced accordingly (e.g., physician peer review, nursing peer review).
Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889), was an important United States Supreme Court case involving the reputable practice of physicians and state laws in the late 19th century. It was a direct challenge to West Virginia having passed "the nation's first genuinely restrictive physician licensing law in the early 1880s." [1] [2]
If at the end of the GMC's case the evidence is such that the allegations appear unprovable a doctor can make an application to discontinue the case under Rule 17(2)(g). [33] If the case does proceed a doctor can adduce relevant evidence and any witnesses in support of their defence. They will likely be cross-examined by the GMC's representative.
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 ...