Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Litigation”

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 1,171 records · Page 65Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

New trends in obstetrical ultrasound malpractice litigation in Israel.

"Wrongful Life" claims are legally valid under Israeli Law. An impaired child can bring an action under Israeli Law, against the doctors who by their alleged negligent conduct, allowed him to be born handicapped and therefore living a miserable life. Recently, we are facing new trends in "wrongful-life" suits in the field of obstetrical ultrasound. As a result, plaintiffs shifted to a different policy that was adopted by the Courts. Efforts are made to show and prove that in the course of the pregnancy there were features indicating the possibility of structural or physiological pathology. Further allegations are put forward to show that the entire management of a pregnancy failed as it ignored the clear signs of fetal pathology; and if the physicians (including gynecologists, ultrasonographers, nurses) would have been more alert and cautious, they would have interpreted these signs appropriately and as a result the pregnancy would have been classified as high risk pregnancy, with all its implications. Proper handling of these risk pregnancies would, as claimants alleged, prevent 'wrongful birth". The Israeli Courts, by their tendency to find a cause to concur with the plaintiffs, follow suit with the above described trends, and by following the Supreme Court decision in Zeitzoff they award compensation to the impaired plaintiff, for rest of his life. To illustrate the above, we present an Israeli District Court case known as Yeshayahu Netanel and others v K.H. Clalit and others.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

On sound and unsound mind: the role of suicide in tort and insurance litigation.

Suicide continues to be a recognized as a crime by common law in a few states. In those jurisdictions, the beneficiary of a claim must prove that the individual who attempted or committed suicide was of unsound mind, to avoid having the patient's act declared illegal, which would bar recovery of the claim. In malpractice and insurance cases, expert testimony is required regarding the mental state of the individual who attempted or committed suicide. Psychiatric testimony varies widely, depending on the legal definition of "unsound mind" and the highly subjective interpretation of legal definitions. Some experts equate suicide with an unsound mind, whereas others apply M'Naghten criteria. Some psychiatrists who disagree with criminalizing suicide refuse to participate in these proceedings. In suicide malpractice cases, the appropriate function of the expert witness is to provide testimony about the standard of care. When experts attempt to testify about "sound or unsound" mind, they must be mindful of the imperfect fit between psychiatry and the law.

Adult↗