|
Solicitors strive to offer legal and medical assistance in proving their claims to victims of medical negligence.The English law assesses medical negligence by asking the Plaintiffs to demonstrate: the duty of care, the care breach, the direct connection between breach and harm (i.e. the directness of harm), and the foreseeability (as opposite to the remoteness) of harm. Duty of care is granted to clinician's patients, but must be demonstrated otherwise.
It's for the medical expert who collaborates with your solicitor to prove that the Defendant clinician breached a duty of care. All duty of care breaches are compared with the usual standards of a reasonable man in the English law.
This reasonable man was first described as "the man on the Clapham omnibus" and nowadays the description was updated to the "commuters on the London Underground" version. Duty of care infringements by trained experts like doctors are evaluated against the common values of a reasonable professional conduct. The values are adapted to the situation while the principle of reasonability is maintained, with no allowance in the case of beginners.
Clinicians have the right to defend their practices, by using the Bolam test. This test is based on what a "responsible body of medical opinion" would do in a similar situation. This "body" is represented by medical staff of similar experience. If these doctors would have offer the Plaintiff the same medical services as the Defendant did, then the Defendant cannot be accused of negligence. The professional experience of the doctor instructed by your solicitor will be compatible to the one of the defendant and of the expert witnesses, as well.
The point to which the care breach caused you harm must be clearly demonstrated by the medical expert hired on your behalf. For you to have a valid case, the expert must point out which pain and suffering you went through is the alleged outcome of medical negligence. All pain and suffering that did not result from exposure to substandard medical procedures is irrelevant for the claim. Directness is difficult to demonstrate in heart failure cases, because timely medical intervention is sometimes impossible and standard medical procedures may fail to improve the patient's condition. This difficulty increases in the case of heart failure in patients treated for other conditions.
The law attaches only the foreseeable outcomes of a certain condition to a duty of care, with typical situations being seen as foreseeable and individual outcomes being seen as remote. You have a valid medical negligence claim when your solicitor's collaborating doctor will prove that the Defendant could have foreseen the worsening of the Plaintiff's condition in absence of an adequate treatment.
It's for the medical expert who collaborates with your solicitor to prove that the Defendant clinician breached a duty of care. All duty of care breaches are compared with the usual standards of a reasonable man in the English law.
This reasonable man was first described as "the man on the Clapham omnibus" and nowadays the description was updated to the "commuters on the London Underground" version. Duty of care infringements by trained experts like doctors are evaluated against the common values of a reasonable professional conduct. The values are adapted to the situation while the principle of reasonability is maintained, with no allowance in the case of beginners.
Clinicians have the right to defend their practices, by using the Bolam test. This test is based on what a "responsible body of medical opinion" would do in a similar situation. This "body" is represented by medical staff of similar experience. If these doctors would have offer the Plaintiff the same medical services as the Defendant did, then the Defendant cannot be accused of negligence. The professional experience of the doctor instructed by your solicitor will be compatible to the one of the defendant and of the expert witnesses, as well.
The point to which the care breach caused you harm must be clearly demonstrated by the medical expert hired on your behalf. For you to have a valid case, the expert must point out which pain and suffering you went through is the alleged outcome of medical negligence. All pain and suffering that did not result from exposure to substandard medical procedures is irrelevant for the claim. Directness is difficult to demonstrate in heart failure cases, because timely medical intervention is sometimes impossible and standard medical procedures may fail to improve the patient's condition. This difficulty increases in the case of heart failure in patients treated for other conditions.
The law attaches only the foreseeable outcomes of a certain condition to a duty of care, with typical situations being seen as foreseeable and individual outcomes being seen as remote. You have a valid medical negligence claim when your solicitor's collaborating doctor will prove that the Defendant could have foreseen the worsening of the Plaintiff's condition in absence of an adequate treatment.
About the Author:
To secure the best possible result for each and every client, at Goodmans we concentrate exclusively on medical negligence and personal injury claims, acting only for claimants.
Widget by Css Reflex | TutZone
No comments:
Post a Comment