Glycoside hydrolase processing of the Pel polysaccharide alters biofilm biomechanics and Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence The court concluded that the physician owed a duty of care to take reasonable precautions in monitoring, releasing, and warning his patient for the protection of unknown third persons potentially jeopardized by the patient's driving upon leaving the physician's office because it was reasonably foreseeable that the patient would injure third. The court balanced the relationship between the parties, foreseeability, and public policy. The court reversed, holding that the complaint did not fail to state a cause of action. ![]() ![]() The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal on the ground that a physician owed no duty of care to an unknown person allegedly injured by the physician's treatment of a patient. The patient then drove from the office, lost consciousness, and his out-of-control vehicle collided with the decedent. Appellee (Defendant)., 680 N.E.2d 1096Īfter the physician gave his patient certain immunizations and/or vaccinations, the patient experienced episodes of loss of consciousness in the physician's office.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |