Medical Negligence by Professor Michael Jones | 2020

  • RM1,601.10 MYR
    Unit price per 
Shipping calculated at checkout.


Medical Negligence by Professor Michael Jones

Author Professor Michael Jones
Publication Date 2020
ISBN 9780414084438
Format Softcover
Publisher Sweet & Maxwell
 

Medical Negligence is a detailed and authoritative examination of the legal liability that healthcare practitioners and hospitals may face as a result of providing care. The book's primary focus is on medical negligence law, but it also covers consent to medical treatment, defective products, confidentiality, hospital liability, defences and limits, damages assessment concepts, and procedural difficulties.

This crucial title is regarded as a leader in the field of medical negligence, and it offers insight into new areas of the law:

  • Interprets applicable legislation and analyses current case law.
  • Provides a straightforward, simple analysis that may be used by both generalists and specialists.
  • It gives authoritative advice.

New in this edition:

  • Completely revised, with a review of key statutory provisions and Commonwealth case law.
  • A detailed review of the Mental Capacity Act 2005's evolving caselaw.
  • The informed consent chapter has been revised to reflect the Supreme Court's judgement in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board.
  • The new tort of misusing private information is discussed.
  • The General Medical Council's essential professional guidelines is fully referenced (Good Medical Practice, 2013 and Confidentiality: good practise in handling patient information, 2017).
  • The headings/subheadings system has been updated to make text navigation easier.

Appendices

Includes Appendices on:

  • NHS Indemnity
  • Pre-Action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes
  • Glossary of Medical Terms

Rely on the experts

Written by Michael A. Jones, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Liverpool, with the assistance of John McQuater, Head of Litigation at Atherton Godfrey.

A selection of new cases in Medical Negligence by Professor Michael includes:

Supreme Court/House of Lords/Privy Council:

  • The Supreme Court concluded in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) that the Bolam test should no longer apply to a doctor's responsibility to provide information regarding the dangers of proposed medical treatment and its alternatives, instead adopting the "prudent patient" standard.
  • Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James (2013) SC dealt with the withholding of medical treatment from persons who were unable to consent.
  • The requirements for a legitimate decision to deprive an incompetent patient of their liberty were discussed in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2014) SC.
  • On the potential liability under the Human Rights Act of medical workers dealing with a patient who is at risk of committing suicide, see Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Trust (2008) and Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (2012).
  • The Privy Council's judicial committee reviewed the "substantial contribution to damage" threshold of causation in a clinical negligence claim in Williams v The Bermuda Hospitals Board (2016).
  • Various Claimants v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (2012); Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Ltd (2016); Cox v Ministry of Justice (2016); and Armes v Nottinghamshire CC (2016) are all examples involving vicarious liability (2017).
  • On an employer's liability for non-delegable tasks, see Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association (2013) and Armes v Nottinghamshire CC (2017).
  • Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd (2011), Durham v BAI (Run Off) Ltd (2012), and International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc UK (2015) (holding that the common law rule for apportioning liability based on a defendant's contribution to the risk of developing mesothelioma established in Barker v Corus is still good law) are among the cases dealing with how the Fairchild principle of causation should be applied.
  • On the right criteria for the illegality defence, see Gray v Thames Trains Ltd (2009) and Patel v Mirza (2016).
  • The claimant's "date of knowledge" for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 was determined in AB v Ministry of Defence (2012).

Court of Appeal:

  • Farraj v King's Healthcare NHS Trust (2009) dealt with a hospital's potential liability for an independent laboratory's work in analysing tissue samples and making a diagnosis.
  • Liability for psychological injury caused by medical malpractice to a patient's relatives: Ronayne v Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (2015).
  • Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (2017) dealt with the liability of an A&E receptionist who provided false information about waiting times.
  • In FB v Rana (2017), a senior house officer in an A&E department was required to take an acceptable history (a basic skill which all hospital doctors are expected to possess).
  • In Webster v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (2017), the doctor's duty to communicate the options and risks with the patient when there are two treatment options was upheld.

Find more books like Medical Negligence by Professor Michael Jones: Medical Law


We Also Recommend