Once the appropriate standard has been established, the breach is again proven if the plaintiff proves that the defendant`s conduct was below the relevant standard of due diligence or did not meet the relevant standard of due diligence. [35] A medical malpractice lawyer or personal injury lawyer can help you through the process of negotiating a settlement or pursuing a successful court case if you are aggrieved by the breach of the standard of care. Contact a lawyer as soon as possible to find out your rights. Helling v. Carey set a disturbing precedent for medical malpractice. The court essentially held that, although standard practice at the time was followed, the physician was still liable. They cited the case of The T.J. Hooper and also referred to a 1903 decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who stated: “What is normally done may be evidence of what should be done, but what should be done is determined by a reasonable standard of prudence, whether or not it is normally followed.” 8 In both cases, it was provided by law that, while great importance is attached to normal practices in terms of standards of care, custom is not the determining factor in establishing negligence. Essentially, both cases suggest that what is commonly done (i.e. habit) may not be enough and that there are some things that may not be standard but are still reasonable for the doctor. Unfortunately for the physician, these cases suggest that it is up to the legal profession and jury, not the medical profession, to decide what is “reasonable” and “unreasonable.” In fact, subsequent studies found that Helling v. Carey changed the practice of offering tonometry to all patients, with subsequent cost increases and no change in morbidity.9 After the verdict in Helling v.
Carey, there was an uproar from doctors. The medical profession as a whole seemed to be asking, “How much is enough?” In order to receive compensation if a standard of care has been breached, you must prove that if a reasonable driver had behaved more prudently and thus avoided the accident, a driver who did not meet the standard of care – and therefore behaved unreasonably – would be held liable for any damage caused by an accident. The Helling v. Carey has pushed state legislatures to pass laws setting the standard of due diligence in their jurisdictions. Washington State was the first to pass this type of legislation, noting that the standard of care is not met when “the defendant or defendants do not exercise the level of ability, care, and learning that others possess in the same profession.” 10 The concept of a “standard of care” is often discussed among physicians. And yet, the legal definition of this term is often not understood. Emergency physicians are at the forefront of medicine and are often involved in cases of medical malpractice. It is estimated that between 7 and 17 malpractice claims per 100 physicians are filed each year.1,2 The number of these claims that result in payment varies from state to state (Table 1).3 Therefore, it is important to know how the legal system sets the standard of care and what standards we are held to as physicians. A chronological approach to the evolving definition of the standard of care according to legal history will help to understand the current concept and nuances of the term. While due diligence is easier to understand in contexts such as simple blunt trauma, it is important to understand that the obligation still exists in situations where the plaintiff and defendant may be separated by large spatial and temporal distances.
In summary, the concept of standard care has evolved over the years and will continue to change as legal theory develops in this area. Hopefully, this will lead to greater certainty and clarity, which is the stated purpose of any law. The bad news is that there are several important cases where it is suggested that even if a practice is not standard, if it is reasonable, a physician can be found guilty of not following that course of action. The good news for physicians is that in recent cases, the courts have often confirmed that the standard of care is what a physician with little competence in the same field would do in the same situation with the same resources. These recent cases also indicate that poor outcomes are to be expected and that not all entities can be expected to be diagnosed. Finally, clinical practice guidelines are more commonly used in court proceedings to support the standard of care. however, their acceptance and use are constantly changing, deciding on a case-by-case basis (Table 2). In negligent law, the reasonable standard of conduct determines the degree of care to be applied in a situation. Care should be proportionate to the obvious risk. If the danger increases, appropriate caution is required. In the absence of a similar case, the Court will determine whether there is a duty of care by applying the three normative tests set out by the House of Lords in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman[5].
The criteria are as follows: The good news for medical practitioners is that recent cases seem to try to impress upon jurors that the standard of care is not synonymous with perfection. While older legal cases tend to be more powerful because they have stood the test of time, these new cases show a tendency to keep jury expectations realistic. n. in the law, to be attentive, prudent and vigilant. Essentially, care (and caution) means that a person does everything they are supposed to do (to prevent an accident). It is the opposite of negligence (and negligence) that makes the person liable for damage caused to injured parties. If a person “exercises due diligence,” a court cannot hold them liable for damages resulting from an accident in which they are involved. (See: negligent) Again, the judge reiterated that the care provided by a physician is minimally competent, may differ from the care provided by other physicians, and that a poor outcome does not mean that the standard of care has not been met. The existence of a duty of care depends, on the one hand, on the existence of a corresponding case in which the courts have already established that a duty of care exists (or does not exist). Situations where due diligence has existed to date include physicians and patients, manufacturers and consumers[2], as well as appraisers and mortgage borrowers. [3] Thus, if there is a similar case of due diligence, the court will simply apply that case to the facts of the new case without prescriptive issues. [4] The standard of care applies to determine whether a health care provider acted negligently.
Comments are closed.