Medical negligence : non-patient and third party claims / Rachael Mulheron.
2010
KD2960.M55 M85 2010 (Map It)
Available at Cellar
Formats
| Format | |
|---|---|
| BibTeX | |
| MARCXML | |
| TextMARC | |
| MARC | |
| DublinCore | |
| EndNote | |
| NLM | |
| RefWorks | |
| RIS |
Items
Details
Author
Title
Medical negligence : non-patient and third party claims / Rachael Mulheron.
Published
Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, Vt. : Ashgate, [2010]
Copyright
©2010
Call Number
KD2960.M55 M85 2010
ISBN
9780754646976 (hardbound)
0754646971 (hardbound)
9780754691129 (e-book)
0754691128 (e-book)
0754646971 (hardbound)
9780754691129 (e-book)
0754691128 (e-book)
Description
l, 419 pages : illustrations ; 25 cm
System Control No.
(OCoLC)574971046
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references (pages [393]-409) and index.
Record Appears in
Gift
Purchased from the income of the Silver Fund
Gift
The Arthur W. Diamond Law Library
Purchased from the income of the Silver Fund
Table of Contents
Preface
xiii
Table of Cases
xv
Table of Legislation
xxxiii
List of Abbreviations
xli
List of Tables
xlv
List of Figures
xlvii
Notes on Mode of Citation and Style
xlix
pt. I
SETTING THE CONTEXT
1.
The Book: An Overview
3
A.
Introduction
3
B.
The Coverage of the Book
4
1.
Claims arising out of physical injury to the non-patient
4
2.
Claims arising out of non-physical injury to the non-patient
5
C.
Why the Topic is Important
6
1.
No 'neat and tidy' boundaries
6
2.
An area of increasing appellate and extra-jurisdictional consideration
8
3.
Legislative and human rights impacts
10
4.
The potential to give rise to group/class actions
11
(a).
The current position
11
(b).
The winds of reform?
12
5.
The contrast with other 'patient-centric' contexts
13
D.
Scenarios and Claims Outside the Ambit of the Book
14
1.
General exclusions
14
2.
Tri-partite scenarios involving patients as claimants
15
3.
Non-patient claims for compensation for violation of a Convention right
16
E.
Conclusion
17
2.
Establishing Negligence in Novel Non-Patient Scenarios
27
A.
Introduction
27
B.
The Negligence Action in the Context of Non-Patient Claims
27
C.
The Legal Framework for Establishing a Duty of Care: Some Preliminary Comments
28
1.
The relevant application of the Caparo test to non-patient suits
28
(a).
Reasonable foreseeability of harm
29
(b).
The role of proximity and public policy
30
(c).
The 'proximity basket'
31
(d).
Relevant policy factors
32
2.
The assumption of responsibility/reliance test
34
(a).
Proving an assumption of responsibility by the healthcare professional
35
(b).
Proving reliance by the non-patient
36
3.
The incremental test in the context of non-patients
38
D.
Some Common Themes of Difficulty in Non-Patient Claims
39
1.
Derivative liability versus independent liability
39
2.
The duty of confidentiality owed to a patient
41
3.
Omissions to act
43
4.
The size of the non-patient class
45
5.
How the duty of care is framed, and how the standard of care is set
47
E.
Causation Conundrums Arising in Some Non-Patient Scenarios
49
1.
Causation and omissions to act
49
(a).
How can omissions 'cause' the non-patient's harm?
49
(b).
Pure omissions require a hypothetical scenario to prove causation
50
2.
Long chains of causation/intervening acts
52
F.
Conclusion
53
pt. II
ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL INJURIES TO NON-PATIENTS
3.
Injuries to Non-Patients Caused by Physically-impaired or Mentally-ill Patients
63
A.
Introduction
63
B.
The Potential Scenarios
64
1.
Injuries to non-patients caused by mentally-ill patients
64
2.
Injuries to non-patients caused by physically-impaired patients
67
3.
Injuries to non-patients by reason of medically-caused physical injury to the patient
69
C.
Constructing (And Deconstructing) A Duty of Care
70
1.
Reasonable foreseeability of harm
71
2.
The requisite proximity between healthcare professional and non-patient
71
3.
The relevant policy factors in the context of dangerous patients
80
4.
How would Tarasoff be decided in English law today?
85
5.
Patients who kill a non-patient, and art 2 of the Convention
86
D.
The Treatment of Tarasoff in the United States: Lessons for England?
88
1.
What does a Tarasoff-type duty actually require a healthcare professional to do?
88
2.
A matter for statute?
94
3.
Judicial rejection of the Tarasoff principle: policy and distinctions
96
4.
Other expansions of the Tarasoff principle
97
5.
What responsibility (if any) should the non-patient bear?
100
6.
Defining the trigger for the Tarasoff duty
100
7.
The problem of proving breach in a Tarasoff scenario
101
8.
Proving a causal link may be difficult
102
E.
Conclusion
103
4.
Contraction or Inheritance of Disease by Non-Patients from Patients
117
A.
Introduction
117
1.
Introducing the two facets of disease liability
117
2.
What the chapter does not cover
118
B.
Relevant Disease-Related Scenarios
119
1.
Contagious or communicable diseases
119
2.
Sexually-transmitted diseases
123
3.
Inherited diseases and conditions
125
C.
The Key Duty of Care Question
126
1.
The weak form of duty
127
2.
The robust form of duty
127
(a).
A corresponding duty of confidentiality?
128
(b).
The onerous task cast upon the healthcare professional
128
(c).
A fragile or unwilling patient
130
3.
The particular problem of genetic information: the case against any duty of care at all
131
4.
Summary: weak or robust form of duty?
134
D.
Constructing (And Deconstructing) A Duty of Care
135
1.
Proximity factors
135
2.
Public policy considerations
139
E.
Particular Causation Conundrums in Disease-Related Scenarios
143
1.
No positive act by the healthcare professional regarding the inheritance or spread of disease
143
2.
The linear chain of causation
144
(a).
The patient's own conduct
144
(b).
The non-patient's conduct
145
(c).
Infection from some other source
146
F.
Conclusion
146
5.
'Bad Samaritan' Liability: Failing to Assist Non-Patients
157
A.
Introduction
157
B.
No Common Law Duty to Assist a Stranger in a Medical Emergency
158
1.
The no-duty-to-assist rule illustrated in medical scenarios
159
2.
Reasons for the no-duty-to-assist rule
160
3.
The relationship between the Convention and the no-duty-to-assist rule
167
C.
Exceptional Scenarios: A Common Law Duty to Assist Strangers in Medical Emergencies
168
1.
Requests for medical treatment a A&E facilities
169
2.
An emergency request, an affirmative undertaking, and reliance
171
3.
An emergency request, and a refusal to assist
173
(a).
The facts and reasoning in Lowns v Woods
173
(b).
Reaction to Lowns v Woods
176
(c).
Would English law follow Lowns v Woods?
177
D.
Criminal Liability for Failing to Assist: A Snapshot From Other Jurisdictions
182
1.
The Northern Territory
182
2.
The state of Vermont
183
3.
Continental Europe
185
4.
A 'Bad Samaritan' statute for England?
186
E.
Causation Conundrums
188
1.
How does 'doing nothing' cause the victim's harm?
188
2.
Hypothetical scenario: what would the healthcare professional have done?
189
F.
Conclusion
189
6.
'Good Samaritan' Liability: Intervening to Assist Non-Patients
201
A.
Introduction
201
B.
Judging the Good Samaritan at Common Law
202
1.
Some illustrative medical scenarios
202
2.
A duty of care owed by the healthcare professional to a stranger
203
3.
Where is the legal standard of care set for the Good Samaritan?
204
(a).
The effect of 'battle conditions'
204
(b).
No relevant specialism
205
(c).
What does not suppress the standard of care
206
4.
How is breach assessed for a Good Samaritan?
206
(a).
The Bolam test of breach
206
(b).
The 'making it worse' rule
207
(c).
The gross negligence test
209
5.
Conclusion
209
C.
Good Samaritan Legislation: Any Lessons for England?
210
1.
The desirability of Good Samaritan legislation: law reform opinion
210
2.
The legislative position in Australia, Canada and the United States
211
3.
Drafting and interpretation problems under 'Good Samaritan' statutes
215
(a).
Bad faith/gross negligence
215
(b).
No expectation of fee or reward
218
(c).
Can a corporation be a good Samaritan?
220
(d).
Rendering 'assistance'
221
(e).
Assistance rendered at a hospital/medical centre
222
(f).
Emergency medical care
223
(g).
Level of injury
225
(h).
A 'voluntary' act (the problem of a pre-existing duty to rescue/assist)
225
(i).
The effect of inebriation on the part of the rescuer, etc.
226
(j).
The type of healthcare professional protected
226
D.
Conclusion
227
pt. III
ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY FOR NON-PHYSICAL INJURIES TO NON-PATIENTS
7.
Pure Economic Loss Claims by Third Parties Associated with the Patient
237
A.
Introduction
237
B.
The Potential Scenarios
238
1.
The failed sterilisation/failed abortion cases
238
(a).
Relevant cases
238
(b).
Joint and solo claims
239
(c).
Failed sterilisation and future sexual partners
242
(d).
Failed sterilisation and siblings
242
(e).
Summary
242
2.
Wrongful birth scenarios
243
(a).
Relevant cases
243
(b).
Joint and solo claims
243
3.
The costs of caring for a negligently-treated patient
245
4.
Where third parties incur other financial losses brought about by a patient's negligent treatment
247
C.
Constructing (And Deconstructing) A Duty of Care in Pure Economic Loss Scenarios
247
1.
Reasonable foreseeability of economic injury or harm
248
2.
The requisite proximity between healthcare professional and third party
249
3.
Relevant policy factors
253
D.
Conclusion
259
8.
Pure Psychiatric Injury Claims by Third Parties Associated with the Patient
265
A.
Introduction
265
B.
Setting the Context
266
1.
Some preliminary points
266
2.
A genuine or recognised psychiatric illness
268
C.
Illustrative Scenarios of Non-Patient Claims for Pure Psychiatric Injury
270
D.
Claims by Non-Patients As Primary Victims Against Healthcare Professionals
275
1.
Proving that the non-patient was a 'participant'
275
2.
Elevating an apparent secondary victim to primary victim status
276
3.
Proving a duty of care, as a primary victim in medical negligence scenarios
278
(a).
The test of foreseeability of psychiatric injury
278
(b).
The role of proximity
278
(c).
No requirement that the non-patient is of 'normal fortitude'
279
(d).
Any requirement of shock?
280
(e).
Public policy considerations
281
E.
Claims by non-Patients as Secondary Victims Against Healthcare Professionals
281
1.
Can a non-patient be both 'primary' and 'secondary' victim?
282
2.
Proving a duty of care, as a secondary victim in medical negligence scenarios
282
(a).
Reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric harm
283
(b).
Relationship proximity: close tie of love and affection
284
(c).
Spatial and temporal proximity
285
(d).
Direct perception of events
287
Non-patient of 'normal fortitude'
288
(f).
Shock
289
(g).
Public policy considerations
293
F.
Non-Patient Claims for Psychiatric Injury, Via Other Avenues
294
1.
Recovery under Caparo principles
294
2.
Negligent misstatement
295
G.
Conclusion
296
9.
'Fear-of-the-Future' Claims by Non-Patients
309
A.
Introduction
309
B.
Fear-of-the-Future Claims in Medical Scenarios
310
1.
The English position
310
2.
Relevant case law from elsewhere
311
C.
Proving a Legally-Recognisable Injury
314
1.
Why a 'genuine psychiatric illness' should be mandatory for fear-of-the-future claimants
314
2.
Falling short: the options
316
(a).
A consequential fear-of-the-future claim
316
(b).
Should anxiety about the future be sufficient?
320
(c).
Conclusion
321
D.
Proving the Duty in English Law
322
1.
Denying fear-of-the-future claimants primary victim status
322
2.
Recovery under the Caparo test
323
(a).
Reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric harm
324
(b).
Proximity between healthcare professional and non-patient
325
(c).
Public policy considerations
326
3.
The case for rethinking fear-of-the-future claims
326
(a).
The zone-of-danger test
327
(b).
The timing point
327
(c).
Extending the Page v Smith principle to other scenarios
328
(d).
The role of policy
328
E.
Some American Insights About Fear-of-the-Future Litigation
329
1.
Exposure to the disease-causing agent
330
(a).
The options: actual or possible exposure
330
(b).
The arguments for and against
331
2.
Proving that the anxiety was objectively reasonable
332
F.
Conclusion
334
10.
Wrongfully-Accused Third Parties in Neglect or Abuse Cases
345
A.
Introduction
345
B.
The Child Claimant
346
1.
The early days
346
(a).
The no-duty viewpoint
347
(b).
The pro-duty viewpoint
348
2.
Key interim developments
350
(a).
The Phelps and Barrett shifts in view
350
(b).
Some interim successes in Strasbourg
353
3.
The East Berkshire (CA) decision
354
C.
The Wrongfully-Accused Claimant
356
1.
The East Berkshire (HL) decision
356
2.
Some applications of the rule in East Berkshire (HL)
361
D.
The Impact of the Echr on the Wrongfully-Accused's Legal Position
364
1.
The East Berkshire rule and art 6
364
2.
Recovery by the wrongfully-accused under art 8
365
3.
Does the common law need to change in light of art 8?
366
(a).
The East Berkshire (HL) obiter dicta
366
(b).
The Lawrence v Pembrokeshire ratio
367
E.
Conclusion
370
Appendix: Potential Liability to Non-Patients and Third Parties: A Synopsis for Healthcare Professionals
381
Bibliography
393
Index
411