Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
The Supreme Court departed and overruled the earlier House of Lords case in Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital, in reconsidering the duty of care of a doctor towards a patient on medical treatment. The case changed the Bolam test to a greater test in medical negligence by introducing the general duty to attempt the ...
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.
Physicians have a duty to act in their patients best interest and can be charged in a court of law if they fail to do so. On the other hand, a physician may be required to act in the interest of third parties if his patient is a danger to others. Failure to do so may lead to legal action against the physician. Medical jurisprudence includes:
Medical law is the branch of law which concerns the prerogatives and responsibilities of medical professionals and the rights of the patient. [1] It should not be confused with medical jurisprudence , which is a branch of medicine , rather than a branch of law .
Another study notes that about 1.14 million patient-safety incidents occurred among the 37 million hospitalizations in the Medicare population over the years 2000–2002. Hospital costs associated with such medical errors were estimated at $324 million in October 2008 alone. [6] Approximately 17,000 malpractice cases are filed in the U.S. each ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
F v R, [1] is a tort law case. It is a seminal case on what information medical professionals have a duty to inform patients of at common law. It pre-dates the decision in Rogers v Whitaker [2] which substantially followed F v R by departing from the Bolam test, [3] at common law in regards to the duty of medical professionals to disclose risks to a patient.