首页> 外文期刊>Clinical Risk >Case in Focus: An old case meets the Civil Procedure Rules: Simms v Birmingham Health Authority
【24h】

Case in Focus: An old case meets the Civil Procedure Rules: Simms v Birmingham Health Authority

机译:重点案例:一起符合民事诉讼规则的旧案件:Simms诉伯明翰卫生局

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

In Clinical Risk, Volume 6(3) (Mayn2000), page 117, we described the circumstancesnof a successful appeal fromna district judge concerning a singlenjoint causation expert in a complexncerebral palsy case arising out ofnevents that took place in 1982.nSeveral features of this case, whichnwas heard by Mr Justice Newman atntrial, starting 1 November 2000, arenof interest. The claimant won on liability,nquantum having been agreednduring the trial. The breach of dutynissues related to the standard ofnobstetric care and, in particular, cardiotocographn(CTG) monitoring inn1982. The judge commented that thendefendant’s two experts (who hadnboth given evidence to the effect thatnthey would have acted no differentlynto the defendant’s obstetric staff atnthe time of events) ‘demonstrated anloss of objectivity’.
机译:在《临床风险》(Clinical Risk),第6(3)卷(2000年5月,第117页)中,我们描述了地方法官成功地针对由1982年发生的一起小儿麻痹引起的复杂脑瘫病例中的单关节因果关系专家提起上诉的情况。从2000年11月1日开始,纽曼法官的审讯就引起了人们的关注。索赔人在审判中已达成共识,要求赔偿责任。违反工作职责的情况与医院的标准护理有关,尤其是1982年对心电图仪(CTG)的监测。法官评论说,当时被告的两位专家(都没有提供证据表明,在事件发生时他们对被告的产科医师的行为不会有任何不同)“证明了客观性的丧失”。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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