Case Study Of The Bolam Test

Authors Note: This paper is being submitted on the 18th of March 2013 for the winter semester of Medical Law and Ethics section 05.

This research paper is being submitted on December 8, 2011, for Mara Pehkonen’s M230 Medical Law and Ethics Course.

A borderline case gives another example of the concept’s use, but some of the defining attributes are excluded. Borderline cases give readers an idea of what the concept is not (Speros, 2005). A 55 year old male attorney presents to PCP complaining of chest pain, fever and shortness of breath for 3 days. He is told that he has to be hospitalized for a cardiac workout because a myocardial infarction is suspected. He is also told that he will have to have a cardiac catheterization. The patient reads the consent and refuses to sign it because he does not understand the medical jargon. He leaves against medical advice but is told to take 2 propranolol 80mg and see his physician in 2 weeks. He takes 2 pills once a day and does not return to see his doctor.

The plaintiff in Ard v. East Jefferson General Hospital, stated on 20 May, she had rang the nurses station to inform the nursing staff that her husband was experiencing symptoms of nausea, pain, and shortness of breathe. After ringing the call button for several times her spouse received his medication. Mrs. Ard noticed that her husband continued to have difficulty breathing and ringing from side to side, the patient spouse rang the nursing station for approximately an hour and twenty-five minutes until the defendant (Ms. Florscheim) enter the room and initiated a code blue, which Mr. Ard didn’t recover. The expert witness testified that the defendant failed to provide the standard of care concerning the decease and should have read the physician’s progress notes stating patient is high risk upon assessment and observation. The defendant testified she checked on the patient but no documentation was noted. The defendant expert witness disagrees with breech of duty, which upon cross-examination the expert witness agrees with the breech of duty. The district judge, upon judgment, the defendant failed to provide the standard of care (Pozgar, 2012, p. 215-216) and award the plaintiff for damages from $50,000 to $150,000 (Pozgar, 2012, p. 242).

The Bolam test comes from the Bolam v Friern hospital management committee (1957) in which a patient suffering from manic depression was recommended ECT (electro-convulsive therapy). The patient wasn’t fully informed of the side effects of the treatment and the patient suffered a broken pelvis as a result. Bolam attempted to sue on the grounds that they failed to gain informed consent and that it was a breach of a duty of care that was owed to him and that the breach resulted in his injury. The three above points regarding informed consent and injury are now the components of the Bolam test. The Bolitho test modified the Bolam test and arose from the Bolitho v city and hackney health authority case in 1998. This case tried to clarify how a two year old died following a cardiac arrest that resulted in brain damage. The two year old was admitted to hospital due to breathing difficulties a doctor was called but did not attend due to her bleep not working. The

The court must listen to the evidence received by two doctors and their evidence must satisfy the court that the offender is suffering from a mental illness as described under the definition above and that their detention is appropriate for medical treatment to take place. They must also assert the court that appropriate medical treatment is available for the offender and when considering to imposing the above order the courts must also take into consideration the offenders history and character; any other relevant circumstances and any other alternative methods that could be imposed. All other avenues must also be explored before the court makes its final decision. the evidence given by the doctors must ascertain the court that hospitalisation is the most beneficial course of action to take in this offenders case (MHLO, 2010)

The case study of Crowe v. Provost, 374 S. W. 2d. 645 (Tenn. 1963), was a highly-anticipated court case for the 1960’s. The following list pertaining to the example of what went wrong and by whom. The first patient appointment opens a file with the patient’s basic information and any allergies including medication(s). This would typically be done with the receptionist. If this was not the doctor’s first time seeing this patient, then the physician should have checked the chart to see if there were any allergies to anything including medication, such as, Penicillin and Cosa-Terrabon. Referring to the Crowe vs. Provost, the child was then rushed back into the doctor’s office with worsening symptoms, the nurse should have listened to the mother. The nurse, could have instructed the mother to take the worsening child to the nearest Emergency Department. The nurse advising the doctor, “That she thought the child was about the same as when the physician saw him earlier in the day” (Flight, M., 2011, page 5-6) was not a good idea. The doctor could have been brought in for an examination of the ailing patient. The receptionist returning from her lunch should not have been a signal for the nurse to leave for any reason with the patient getting worse. Again, the patient and mother should have been instructed to go to the nearest emergency room. The receptionist should not have been left alone with an ailing patient. Mistakenly, the receptionist calling the doctor first and

The medicinal experts on staff for the 12 hours that the patient was in painful distress while she was being drowned by the feeding solution, neglected to perceive that she was in trouble until it was past the point of no return. While this is obviously a blatant case of medicinal negligence, not all medical malpractice cases are quite so obvious, and not every single medical procedure with a troublesome result can be viewed as medical malpractice negligence. The essential prerequisite for medical malpractice is that the doctor or other medical expert has breached the acknowledged standard of care for their specialty in their geographic area, and that the breach caused harm to the patient. Doctors, as human beings, commit errors consistently, yet in the event that their mistake does not bring about injury or harm to the patient, there are no grounds for lawful

This proceeding before a Medical Review Panel, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. §§ 40:1299.41, et seq., is brought by Jimmy Martinez against multiple health care providers, including Dr. Mark Kappelman, a qualified health care provider entitled to have the claim filed against him reviewed by this Panel. The claims made against Dr. Kappelman are mere allegations without support and proof. In a medical malpractice case the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that Dr. Mark Kappelman’s actions in this matter fell below the standard of care required of similar health care providers. The claimant also bears the burden of proving whether any such alleged act or acts of negligence caused any injuries. It is the duty of the

Currently the Scottish Government is considering the adoption of Pre-Action Protocols in order to simplify and standardise the process which claimants go through to pursue clinical negligence claims. It has been suggested they would incorporate some of the main features of the existing Law Society of Scotland Protocols, which cover professional negligence, personal injury and other claims. They would also incorporate some of the main features of the English Pre-Action Protocols for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes. Adoption of the Pre-Action Protocols to cover clinical negligence claims is highly recommended and their adoption is considered an overdue reform within the field of

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

It is a basic principle of law in this country that an adult, mentally competent person has the right to refuse treatment. The court of appeal has emphasised that provided the patient has the necessary mental capacity, which is assessed in relation to the decision to be made, then he or she can refuse to give consent for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all (Dimond, 2008). However, in this case it is in the best interest of the patient that the MDT administrated medication covertly. The legal issue identified in this case relates to the issue of consent. Within the case study professionalism had to challenged when it came to the capacity of the patient. The MDT had to resolve the legal issues associated with capacity and consent.

Tort law is a considerably old branch of English law, covering a wide range of areas within such as defamation, nuisance, trespass and, most importantly, negligence. The latter set out the modern concept of negligence by means of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. Furthermore, in twentieth century a number of fundamental elements were established in negligence, elevating its significance above all other areas of tort law. Most problematic and difficult subgroup of negligence is clinical negligence, where doctor are held to another standards. Nonetheless, the old foundations were disturbed by the enforcement of the Human Rights Act 1998, which was a successful attempt to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights into English domestic law. It is applied directly or indirectly into many areas of law, clinical negligence in torts in particular, adding multiple complications as it has to comply with the new Act. The influence of the HRA is yet to be fully researched professionally and amended. In attempt to explore the impact of the HRA 1998 on clinical negligence this essay examines the reasons for integration of the HRA and issues it came with and compares various types of negligence, liability of public authorities and remedies before and after the HRA came into force.

The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (“the Act”) has been moderately principled and extremely effective in its reforms to duty of care in negligence. In light of the facts, the main relevant area of reform in the Act has been to liability for psychiatric injury. These reforms have largely been principled in following the recommendations of the Ipp Report and common law, but have made deviations in order to better achieve the goal of reducing liability for psychiatric injury. These have been very effective changes in achieving this goal. However, the principles the Act is based on, contradict legal and normative principles, creating injustice by disentitling people and enhancing the distinctions between physical and mental injury.

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.