This is the third article in our 8 part series on medical malpractice litigation.  The law does not expect health care professionals to provide the highest level of care, or to meet a gold standard in providing care.  They are expected to exercise the reasonable degree of care that would be expected of a normal, prudent practitioner.  In this article, Brenda Osmond reviews how the courts determine that standard, and whether or not there is room for common sense in assessing the standard of care.

This is the second article in our 8 part series on medical malpractice litigation. Informed consent cases are highly fact-driven and are to be assessed on the basis of what a reasonable person would want to know, informed by any relevant unique circumstances, potential consequences of those risks, and what a reasonable person would have done had they been properly informed. In this article Susanne Raab reviews case law and discusses how different courts’ decisions have led to the evolution of the law of informed consent.

If a person develops a serious illness or is injured in an accident, they will depend on their family physician not only to provide medical care, but also to assist in obtaining employment accommodations, insurance benefits or third-party compensation.  Physicians have legal and ethical duties in these circumstances.  In this article, Susanne Raab describes a physician’s duties in this medical-legal environment.

This is the first article in our 8 part series on medical malpractice litigation. One of the first issues the plaintiff’s counsel must consider before started a medical malpractice action is which health providers owed their client a duty of care. In many cases this issue is straightforward – but there can be special circumstances that can call into question whether a duty exists.  In this article, Andrea Donaldson reviews the foundation principles of the duty of care and considers these principles in the context of a number of cases.

Doctors have a duty to act with the utmost loyalty and good faith when dealing with their patients, and must never allow their personal interests to conflict with their professional duty.  This duty is called a “fiduciary duty.”  In this article Andrea Donaldson reviews a number of infamous lawsuits in which physicians breached this duty, and discusses a recent application of these principles in the case law.

It is recognized that patients have a right to make informed decisions about their medical care. Yet somehow, when it comes to the deciding between a vaginal birth and a caesarean section, in the past it has been acceptable for a physician to refuse a patient’s request if it was not, in the doctor’s opinion, medically necessary. Lindsay McGivern reviews recent policy developments that acknowledge that a woman’s preferences should be taken into consideration.