首页> 外文期刊>Clinical Risk >Mrs Hanan Farraj & Mr Bassem Farraj vs. 1. King's Healthcare NHS Trust & 2. Cytogenic DNA Services Limited*
【24h】

Mrs Hanan Farraj & Mr Bassem Farraj vs. 1. King's Healthcare NHS Trust & 2. Cytogenic DNA Services Limited*

机译:Hanan Farraj女士和Bassem Farraj女士与1. King's Healthcare NHS Trust和2. Cytogenic DNA Services Limited *

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Mrs Farraj, a patient of a Jordanian hospital, was concerned that her pregnancy might be affected by beta thalassaemia major (BTM). Her obstetrician sent a small, blood-stained and poor quality tissue sample to King's Healthcare NHS Trust to test. King's sent it to Cytogenetic DNA Services Ltd., a private laboratory, with instructions to ‘culture only’. King's analysed the cultured sample and reported that all was well. When the child was born that reassurance proved wrong. He had BTM, with the lifetime consequences for treatment and care which that condition entails. King's analysis had been carried out on maternal not fetal tissue. The parents sued the hospital and the laboratory, and succeeded against both at a High Court trial on liability and jurisdiction. The judge found there had been a fundamental failure of communication between the hospital and the laboratory. King's appealed against the judgment. The Claimants cross-appealed, relying on the judgment but also arguing that King's had a non-delegable duty of care. The Court of Appeal found in favour of King's on the appeal and cross-appeal. The laboratory is liable for the parents' damages and for the legal costs of the parents and of King's. The case has implications for legal advisers and risk managers when services are contracted out to private providers, though the outcome of the argument on non-delegable duty of care may have been different if Mrs Farraj had been directly under King's care as a patient.
机译:约旦医院的一名患者Farraj太太担心她的怀孕可能会受到严重的β地中海贫血(BTM)的影响。她的妇产科医生向King's Healthcare NHS Trust发送了少量血迹斑斑且质量较差的组织样本进行测试。金氏将其发送给私人实验室Cytogenetic DNA Services Ltd.,并附有“仅限培养”的说明。金氏分析了培养的样品,并报告一切都很好。孩子出生后,放心证明是错误的。他拥有BTM,并需要终身接受治疗和护理。 King的分析是针对母体而非胎儿组织进行的。父母起诉医院和实验室,并在高等法院关于责任和管辖权的审判中胜诉。法官发现医院与实验室之间的通讯根本性失败。金对判决提出上诉。索赔人根据判决作出了交叉上诉,但同时又辩称金氏公司有不可委派的谨慎义务。上诉法院在上诉和交叉上诉中裁定支持国王的。实验室对父母的损失以及父母和国王的法律费用负责。当将服务外包给私人提供者时,此案对法律顾问和风险管理者有影响,尽管如果法拉吉太太作为病人直接受到国王的照料,则关于不可委派的照料义务的争论结果可能会有所不同。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Clinical Risk》 |2010年第4期|p.00000119-00000121|共3页
  • 作者

    Stuart Gillings;

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 00:43:14

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号