[In answer to a problem question] Consider the rights and remedies, if any, of Marco against Dr Jones and the hospital in connection with his partial paralysis.

Marco has a strong claim in negligence against Dr Jones for his incorrect diagnosis and ineffective treatment which falls below the duty of care expected from a doctor in these circumstances. Medical professionals have an established duty to act through Cassidy -v- Ministry of Health, and Kent -v- Griffiths [2010] has recently developed this - doctors now have no positive duty to attend an injury, but once they do so they must not make the situation worse. This duty is a higher duty for medical professionals as a result of the Bolam test which states that healthcare professionals will be held to a standard of care beyond that of the reasonable person. This breach occurs by an incorrect diagnosis and ineffective treatment, form which harm arises in the form of undiagnosed head injuries. This harm is more than 'merely trifling' as per Rothwell -v- Chemical Insulating Group [2007].

Answered by Ed G. Law tutor

2628 Views

See similar Law A Level tutors

Related Law A Level answers

All answers ▸

The offence of murder is out-dated and is urgently in need of reform. To what extent do you agree?


What are "actus reus" and "mens rea"


How do I decide whether the defense of intoxication can be used for any particular offence?


Before leaving Les’s house, Neil swallowed some tablets which he found in the bathroom. Subsequently, back in his own flat, he set fire to the carpet (which belonged to the landlord) under the delusion that he was making a camp-fire. The fire spread rapid


We're here to help

contact us iconContact usWhatsapp logoMessage us on Whatsapptelephone icon+44 (0) 203 773 6020
Facebook logoInstagram logoLinkedIn logo
Cookie Preferences