Blog Archives

TweetIt is clear already there is a legal requirement to advise patients of all material risks associated with vaccines[1] and to obtain valid informed consent[2]. 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 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.  …

Without consent there is no “Doctor-Patient” relationship in law.
The Informed Consent Doctrine is the cornerstone of the Doctor-Patient relationship.   It has altering the attitudes of a new generation of Doctors towards their patients, and its requirements are now reflected in consent forms that heath care institutions require patients to sign upon admission and before various procedures are performed.
Setting the Boundaries for the Doctor-Patient Relationship…..

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.

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.

It is not reasonable for defendant to reverse out of driveway at 8.8 km//h where his visibility ‘extremely limited’ and where he was crossing path he knew to be regularly used by cyclists and where and there were ‘reasonably safe alternatives available to him at minimal cost’.

A recent decision in the Queensland Court of Appeal highlights the importance of ensuring control measures are implemented to prevent bullying behaviour in the workplace.

A police officer sued the Police Commissioner and the New South Wales Government for vicarious liability, alleging negligence and breach of duty of care for failure of the Commissioner of Police to take reasonable precautions against the officer’s risk of suffering psychiatric injury.

No newer/older posts
%d bloggers like this: