Injustice Law: The Canadian Malpractice System

In the article “Despite Counsel, Victim Is Hindered by tort laws.” The author Becca Aaronson, explains that sometimes tort laws may not feel fair. Connie Spears is just an ordinary woman who went to the Emergency because she felt some pain in her legs which she told the hospital she is known to have blood clots but, after being checked by the doctors they sent her home with a minor diagnoses. Just a short few days later she ended up in a different hospital with serious illness that caused her to loose both of her legs. She then filed a medical malpractice law suit but, she had to produce adequate expert reports within 120 days of filing their cases or she will be ordered to pay the defendants court fees. Connie Spears argues that

My evidence for why personal injury law is fair is as follows. Firstly in law 215 (Doc. E) , it states that if a surgeon has operated on a patient and succeeded, the patient shall pay him 10 shekels of silver. . In law 196 ( Doc. E) it states that if a man knocks out the eye of a free man his eye will be knocked out too. These laws are fair because it is helping the hurt, victim, accused, or the weaker person.

In Canada, when someone feels they have been wronged or injured by another, they can seek compensation through the courts. This area of law is known as tort law which examines conduct and consequences (Lin, 2010, p. 4). Tort law does not rely on promises or contracts. It is an area of law that examines the obligations and duties one party has to another. In relation to business and professionals, tort law aims to change the behavior of producers to prevent future harm or loss (Lin, 2010, p. 9).

These plaintiffs (patients) desire admission to the defendant hospitals for the treatment of their illness, and to be treated by their present physician or dentist, without discrimination on the basis of race.

The consequences of medical malpractice can be devastating: paralysis, brain damage, cognitive deficits, loss of limbs, organ failure, permanent disabilities, and death are some of the outcomes.

Just across the Tasman Sea is New Zealand who provides a straight-forward system of distributive justice through a ‘no-fault’ compensation system that is funded through general taxation and an employer levy. Under the system, patients are compensated for medical injuries within weeks and in turn surrender their right to sue for damages for personal injury. Similarly, their medical malpractice system punishes under-diagnosis which provides an incentive for practitioners to take more care rather than acting controversially.

As the government continued to evolve Canada needed a set system of rules that allowed for analyzing of regulations and government principals. It was extremely important that the three branches of government powers were kept separate so that there would be no infringement on the roles of the legislative and judicial branches. Administrative law consists of rules and ideologies which regulate how governmental departments and their agencies establish and oversee laws, set benchmarks in how other government organizations or authorities should and must carry out their roles and establishes the powers of higher courts and how they control the powers they are given. Most importantly, it deciphers what procedures one must follow and what solutions

One approach to minimize large amounts of tort claims for medical malpractice is to put a cap on non-economical awards. Tort reform is the response; a tort is a civil lawsuit for damages over private wrongs other than breach of contract. According to Lau and Johnson (2014), a tort can be categorized into three categories: intentional tort, when tortfeasor acted with intent, negligence, if the tortfeasor did not act intentionally, but failed to act as a reasonable person, and lastly, strict liability, if the tortfeasor is engaged in certain activities, which caused injury or death due to it. The massive medical malpractice cases across the nation have made defending frivolous lawsuits is a national problem; ultimately, the general public

Within the USA, 12 states operate the no-fault approach, whereas the rest are fault-based. Originally, over 20 states incorporated the no-fault scheme, however they have since brought back the fault element. Medical injury within the USA is controversial and is subject to debate. There are calls for more states to incorporate a more administrative approach towards compensating patients for their medical injuries, which has been encompassed in New Zealand. However, the health care systems in countries that do operate no-fault medical liability are significantly different from the USA health care system which is more heavily reliant on public payment and provisions of services. However, like the scheme encompassed in New Zealand it is plausible

All medical professionals are liable to pay for the endured medical costs only according to the part they played in a particular injury or mistreatment. Non economic compensation however can be equally application on all the defendants.

Tort reform has intense arguments to both sides and creates a myriad of concerns. On one side of the tort reform movement, defendants such as corporations and medical professionals want limits on the damages awarded to the plaintiff. The benefit of tort reform for defendant is the financial savings. However, a cap placed on medical malpractice cases and other cases that are of negligence would standardize the monetary compensation regardless of the damage. In my opinion, Medical malpractice tort reform is a gray area, for each breach of the standard of care involves a different story and person, therefore the damages vary and should be evaluated fairly. In this essay, both sides of the argument are discussed, with a focus on medical malpractice tort reform.

Health risk the growth of mal practice and the deposition of quality care needs improvement, many patients are not receiving the fair treatment due compensation. Patients liability should be upheld within any health facility The safety for patients and medical liability is important in healthcare because many physicians have obligations required to be fulfilled by law to make sure the quality of care is done in a professional manner.federal law has created an legal system that still faces issues dealing with quality of care.Many health physicians still lack accuracy when it comes to a patients liability. Malpractice has not made the right changes to set forth better effort to the improvement of quality health care.The way courts handle

Lawsuits of medical malpractice may be the greatest threat to justice in the legal system. Tort cases are constantly filed against medical practices which cause health care prices to dramatically increase in states lacking caps. Medical practitioners are forced to undergo an unnecessary amount of costly tests and procedures in order to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits. The expenses of these precautions cause hospitals and other medical facilities to charge more for the care given to the patients,

Bullying is an important topic in society because it continues to be a problem for individuals whether they are in school, at work or even at home. Bullying can be demonstrated verbally and/or physically. In other words, it is when one hurts or threatens to harm a person to do his/her wantings. It is controversial whether Canadian law has adequately addressed this topic. Bullying has indeed been addressed properly throughout Canada’s law system in various ways. The goal of this essay is to show that the justice system has made many laws and regulations to help victims or anyone involved in the bullying through the many bills created to amend existing acts, the created action plans against bullying and laws that are created in the Criminal Code.

The two most popular seem to be the capping of damages – limiting the rewards a victim of medical malpractice receives – and the limitation of a patient’s right to jury (Odom, “Health”). A number of other proposed actions exist, including procedural limitation on the ability to file claims and the idea called “loser pays” – forcing the loser of the case to pay for the other party’s costs in the trial. The practice of capping damages would reduce risk for doctors, as a lawsuit would no longer bankrupt them. Thus, they would not be forced to over-test and overspend. It would also create less incentive for patients to pursue claims they knew were undeserved (Odom). Many proponents of tort reform also advocate limiting patients’ rights to a trial by jury – specially designed “health courts” would preside over the cases instead (“Health”). Because of the trial by jury, as currently practiced in these cases, very often the actual reprimands and awards are subject to chance and the “sympathy vote” instead of facts. The same injury could grant a patient anywhere from $100,000 to $2 million (“Health”). The design of health courts would eliminate this subjectivity, and redress would be awarded in reasonable, consistent amounts. The two other actions mentioned, procedural limitations on the ability to file claims and the “loser pays” idea, would work by decreasing the incentive of a patient to file an unreasonable claim. It