The strict Ohio Supreme Court decision in Biddle: third party law firm held liable for inducing disclosure of medical information.
نویسنده
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Tarasoff and the dangerous driver: a look at the driving cases.
In three recent cases, hereinafter referred to as the driving cases, the courts have taken up the issue of whether a psychotherapist should be held liable for negligent diagnosis and treatment and failure to warn third parties of a patient's potential danger to others in the operation of an automobile. These cases will be discussed as (1) an extension of the Tarasoff decision, which established...
متن کاملOhio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health.
Ohio law made it a crime for a physician to perform an abortion on an unmarried, unemancipated, minor woman unless one parent is notified or a court authorizes the abortion on the minor's showing that she is sufficiently mature to make the decision herself; that she has been physically, emotionally, or sexually abused by one parent; or that notice is not in her best interests. The plaintiffs, ...
متن کاملبررسی سیر تحول در ثبت اختراعات مرتبط با دی.اِن.اِی با تأکید بر رأی دیوان عالی آمریکا در قضیه انجمن پاتولوژی مولکولی علیه شرکت میریاد
Patentability of inventions related to biotechnology and genetics has been one of the most challenging issues in patent law. One of these challenges is whether patenting products in which natural components are used is correct? Can we put human genes in the ownership of certain individuals? In addition, exercising exclusive rights arising from patents will limit the access of people, in particu...
متن کاملHIV non-disclosure and the criminal law: An analysis of two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada
On October 5, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decisions in the cases of Mabior and D.C. The Court decided that people living with HIV have a legal duty, under the criminal law, to disclose their HIV-positive status to sexual partners before having sex that poses a “realistic possibility” of HIV transmission. Not disclosing in such circumstances means a person could be convicted o...
متن کامل‘Bolam’ to ‘Montgomery’ is result of evolutionary change of medical practice towards ‘patient-centred care’
The Supreme Court judgement in 'Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board' has caused a change in the law concerning the duty of doctors on disclosure of information to patients regarding risks. The law now requires a doctor to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Journal of law and health
دوره 15 2 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2000