TweetIt is clear already there is a legal requirement to advise patients of all material risks associated with vaccines and to obtain valid informed consent. However, there is an equally a legal duty to disclose a suspected adverse event which has occurred in the course of treatment. If a parent brings a child in for a vaccine, and […]
the defendant must adduce proofs that raise a “more probable than not” inference in favour of what it urges; there must be a reasonable and definite inference available on the whole of the evidence; there must be something more than conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability. And in assessing whether the defendant has satisfied its obligation, the Court must take into account the gravity of the matters alleged….
The appellant and the respondent were involved in an altercation in the gaming room at the Parramatta Leagues Club. The respondent suffered a fracture to the right orbit and psychiatric injury in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder. The appellant was the subject of criminal charges in relation to the assault on the respondent. He entered a guilty plea and had a good behavior bond imposed pursuant to s9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
The Civil Case for Damages
After admitting guilt in the Criminal trial, the victim now initiated a Civil Claim for damages. …
There is an interesting matter that I have been confronted with.
A patient goes to see a Medical Practitioner (who is a Doctor registered with the Australian Medical Board) about obtaining the Doctors written recommendation as to the start date for a treatment program to begin for her son.
In this case there were multiple injections involving 11 different types of medication that would be injected into the body of the 18 month old child. The mother was concerned about a scientific report she read in the The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) which is a weekly medical journal published by the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is among the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals as well as the oldest continuously published one.
The Doctor would not give her opportunity to discuss science and shut her down saying “we are not obliged to provide scientific evidence as per legal advice (Citing name of Insurer). So now that science was off the table in things to discuss, the Doctor then discussed the risk versus benefit of the treatment, saying things can go wrong, allergic and other reactions can occur however these risks are accepted by the Australian Government who approved the treatment through the Therapeutic Goods Administration and “mainstream medical literature” says the risks are “vastly outweighed by the potential benefits.”
In Civil Proceedings where the wrongdoer is causing you damage and if you were to initiate regular court proceedings it would be futile as they would destroy the evidence soon as they found out you were taking action. This could be in situations of partnership break downs in business or personal life, in cases where there is theft of intellectual property or financial records involved, or it may be used in cases where things like cyber crimes are being committed and the proof you need could easily be erased.
So both in Common Law and by virtue of legislative instruments if you are the Victim of a Troll on the Internet who hides behind an Anonymous account, BEFORE you commence action against the Troll you need to know their true Identity and the above shows you how, in law, the Courts and the legal system are here to ensure you get Justice and the perpetrator is called to account.
Service of documents via Facebook and other social networking sites may be permitted by courts where personal service cannot be effected. However, courts may refuse permission where there is doubt that the person who created a particular page on a social networking site is in fact the defendant.
Issue : Pro bono legal assistance was sought by the defendant seeking a Court order under r7.36Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005(NSW) to be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on a
Pro Bono basis.
Where an employee engages in conduct that an employer considers not only justifies dismissal but warrants summary dismissal, it is important to consider whether summary dismissal could make the termination harsh, unjust or unreasonable.