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 1,045 records · Page 58Linked to original sources
PubMed1987

Engstrom v. Courteau, 1986.

The plaintiffs were a husband, who had undergone a vasectomy in order not to pass on a hereditary disease, and his wife. After the wife gave birth to a child born with hereditary defects, they brought a wrongful birth suit on their behalf and a wrongful life suit on the behalf of their child. The Court allowed them to recover on their behalf, but not on their child's behalf. It held that it is impossible to consider life, even if restricted by handicaps, to constitute damage.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1987

Judgment, 2 February 1985.

On a claim by a woman who had given birth after a negligently performed sterilization the Court awarded damages amounting to 100 per cent of the standard rate of child support normally paid by a father for an illegitimate child plus a 50 percent addition because she was not working and already had three or more children in her care. It also awarded 4000 marks for pain and suffering and held that the fact that she did not undergo an abortion or let her child be adopted did not negate her claim.

Behavior↗
PubMed1987

Venner v. North East Essex Area Health Authority and Another, 19 February 1987.

The plaintiff brought a negligence suit against the defendant physician and health authority after she became pregnant subsequent to the performance on her of a sterilization. The Court dismissed the suit, ruling that the physician's advice that the plaintiff quit taking birth control pills one month before the sterilization in order to avoid the possibility of thrombosis was justified and that the physician had also advised her to abstain from sex or have her husband use a condom, had asked her on the morning of the operation if there was any chance that she was pregnant, and had told her that the sterilization would not terminate any pregnancy.

Developed Countries↗
PubMed1987

Gold v. Haringey Health Authority, 14 April 1987.

The plaintiff, who became pregnant and gave birth to her fourth child after having been sterilized by the defendant health authority, brought an action for damages for negligence against the defendant. She claimed that the defendant had not warned her of the risk of failure and that a statement made to her that the operation would be "irreversible" constituted negligent misrepresentation. The Court of Appeal reversed a lower court decision awarding damages. It held that the defendant's failure to warn of possible failure did not constitute negligence, but met the required standard of care, because at the time of the operation a substantial body of responsible doctors would not have made a warning. It also ruled that the defendant's statement could not be viewed as a "representation" either expressed or implied that the operation would be a success.

Developed Countries↗
PubMed1987

Biles v. North East Thames Regional Health Authority and Another, 30 October 1987.

The plaintiff was a woman who had been sterilized as a teenager after her physician had wrongly told her that having a baby could kill her. The defendant admitted negligence, but contested the amount of damages. The Court ruled for the plaintiff and awarded damages for probable permanent infertility, for the physical pain and suffering endured in various operations and examinations undergone to try to help the plaintiff conceive, and for scarring as a result of the sterilization. It also awarded damages for impairment of sexual function, for emotional pain and suffering, and for future expenses for in-vitro fertilization and psychotherapy and psychosexual therapy.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1987

Smith v. Gore, 13 April 1987.

After undergoing a failed tubal ligation and giving birth to a healthy child, the plaintiff brought a wrongful pregnancy suit against physicians, a university hospital, and a manufacturer of a sterilization technique seeking damages for emotional distress, loss of income, expenses of rearing a child to the age of majority, and punitive damages. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that all damages were recoverable except those for the expenses of rearing the child. It ruled that the costs of rearing a normal, healthy child lay with the parents under both statutory and common law. It also held that there was no duty to mitigate damages by having an abortion or placing the child for adoption. In 1987 the Supreme Courts of Kansas and Oklahoma also rejected claims for the expenses of raising a healthy child whose birth resulted from a failed sterilization. (Johnston v. Elkins, 1 May 1987 [736 P.2d 935]; Morris v. Sanchez, 10 November 1987, corrected 17 November 1987 [746 P.2d 184]). In making its ruling, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma also held that there was no duty to mitigate damages in such a case. In addition, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division, held that a woman who became pregnant after being sterilized could not recover because she did not show that, had she been informed that there was a 1 percent chance of the sterilization failing, she would not have chosen to be sterilized anyway (Marshall v. University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics, 29 December 1987 [520 N.E.2d 740]).

Americas↗
PubMed1987

Judgment, 28 January 1987.

The plaintiff, who was pregnant with twins, underwent an abortion. Subsequently she learned that only one of the twins had been aborted and, after giving birth to a healthy child, sought damages for pain and suffering and for the loss of income after the delivery of the child. The Court held that the physician who performed the abortion had a duty to accomplish a successful abortion, which was not negated by medical exams after the abortion that failed to discover the continuing pregnancy. It remanded the case to a lower court to determine damages, including loss of income during the period in which the plaintiff was required to devote herself to the care of the child.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1987

Public Law 307-1987, 30 April 1987.

This Law prohibits "actions for wrongful life based on prevention of abortion." It provides that "No person shall maintain a cause of action or receive an award of damages on his behalf based on the claim that but for the negligent conduct of another he would have been aborted."

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed2002

[Society, law and epilepsy].

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is an important problem from a medical, social and legal point of view. Proof of this is the fact that it constitutes the second most commonly alleged cause for absolution of responsibility in Spain, according to the jurisprudence from the Supreme Court (1976 1995). METHOD: Throughout history it has been classified as a magical, supernatural disease and has been studied within psychiatry as an endogenous psychosis. It has therefore been considered a form of madness, which has led to court decisions that have taken this concept into account. The supposed dangerousness of suffers from epilepsy must be the exception, and their supposed epileptic characters and personalities that drive them to commit atrocious murders are no longer of any relevance. The problems stemming from epileptic seizures are to be seen in civil, penal, military, canonical and labour law, very often in an exclusive fashion. CONCLUSION: We think it is worthwhile reviewing these concepts with a view to their undergoing a later modification, which would lead to the full integration of these patients and to their being considered as suffering from a neurological illness.

Crime↗
PubMed2002

Mea culpa, mea culpa: a call for privilege for self-disclosure of error in the setting of primary medical education.

Medical errors cause 44,000 to 98,000 deaths per year, which is due, in part, to the lack of privileged self-reporting systems. Such systems are of great value to the medical community, especially to new doctors and to medical students. Nonetheless, because documents produced for self-reporting conferences and statements made against self-interest are admissible in court, many observers believe that doctors are discouraged from self-reporting errors. The author proposes the creation of a new medical self-disclosure privilege to protect and promote self-reporting systems, which will lead to a reduction in medical errors.

Education, Medical↗