Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Medical Liability”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 577 records · Page 32Linked to original sources
PubMed1980

[Liability of the medical expert (author's transl)].

The medical expert is not the guarantor of the individual he has examined and thus cannot be held liable for overlooking facts which are irrelevant as far as the fulfillment of his brief is concerned. In a verdict of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal German Constitutional Court; Art. 3, Art. 14 GG) the extent of the expert's liability in cases where basic laws have been infringed is indicated: he has to bear a portion of the responsibility for the verdict.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed2003

Does full disclosure of medical errors affect malpractice liability? The jury is still out.

BACKGROUND: Mandatory disclosure of medical errors has been advocated to improve patient safety. Many resist mandatory disclosure policies because of concerns about increasing malpractice exposure. It has been countered that malpractice liability actually decreases when there is full disclosure of medical errors. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to determine what is known about the impact of full disclosure on malpractice liability. METHODS: Electronic searches of multiple databases were supplemented with hand searches of bibliographies and communication with recognized experts in the field. RESULTS: Screening the titles, abstracts, and, in many cases, the full articles from more than an estimated 5,200 citations resulted in identification of one published study directly examining malpractice liability when a policy of full disclosure was implemented. DISCUSSION: Despite extensive literature on the impact of disclosure on malpractice liability, few well-designed studies have focused on the real-world impact on the volume and cost of suits following implementation of a full disclosure policy. Many articles examine why patients sue their doctors, suggesting that some lawsuits may be averted by disclosure, but the articles do not allow us to estimate the additional suits that would be created by disclosure. Additional studies addressing the effect of disclosure on malpractice liability are needed.

Compensation and Redress↗
PubMed1995

Legal and medical aspects of liability for negligently occasioned nervous shock: a current perspective.

This article examines recent developments in Australian and English common law relating to negligently occasioned psychiatric illness (nervous shock) in the light of advances in understanding of aetiology, neurophysiology and psychology of emotional injury. The legal analysis focuses on the modern concept of proximity relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The courts use the notion of proximity to determine the existence of duty of care in cases involving liability of the defendant for the negligent infliction of 'mere' nervous shock; that is where the plaintiff who had not been present at the site of the accident in which a close relative or a co-worker has been negligently killed or injured, claims to have suffered a lasting psychoneurosis or a psychosomatic illness as a result of a sudden and severe emotional distress occasioned by the defendant's wrongful act. Cases from the US, [1] Canada, [2] South Africa [3] and New Zealand [4] are not discussed; to include them would have involved too much exposition in comparison to their influence upon the development of the law of nervous shock. Nevertheless, since the developments described below concern the core question of law, the nature and the ambit of defendant's liability for unintentionally occasioned psychiatric damage, they will have to be considered in any jurisdiction in which this question arises.

Australia↗
PubMed1988

Psychotherapy with physicians' families: when attributes in medical practice become liabilities in family life.

Personality attributes typically found in successful physicians can lead to difficulties in family life. This paper identifies physicians' positive characteristics and demonstrates with case-history material how these characteristics can contribute to interactional problems with family members. Ways of engaging physicians in treatment and avoiding some of the common pitfalls in working with this group are discussed.

Achievement↗
PubMed2006

[Alcoholic patients: legal responsibility of physicians].

The liability rising from medical cares given to a patient suffering from an addiction to alcohol does not differ from those stemming from cares to other pathologies. The cares must be relevant with regard to state of art, an information as comprehensive as possible must be provided to the patient, on the investigations to be carried out, as well as on the treatments considered. The most difficult thing to achieve is to obtain a full co-operation of the patient, who since the law of March 4, 2002, has the right to refuse a treatment, which cannot be imposed to him. Safeguarding the medical secrecy in particular with regard to the family can be difficult, because of the pressures exerted to obtain the revelation from it. But this revelation of the medical secrecy is authorized by the law only within very precise limits. In very specific circumstances, a doctor can be liable for a criminal offence made by his patient, for instance when he does not prevent his patient to drive a car, while he is obviously drunk.

Alcoholism↗