Helling V. Carey (1974)
Definition
Washington Supreme Court case in which ophthalmologist Thomas Carey was held negligent for not performing tonometry on a patient under 40, despite following professional consensus, because the precaution was so inexpensive and the potential harm so severe. The decision was legislatively reversed in Washington by the Medical Malpractice Reform Act 1975 but retains theoretical significance.
Related terms
- BNS § 106
- Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, reproducing the substance of IPC § 304A (causing death by negligence). Sub-section (1) applies...
- Bolam Test
- The UK standard for medical negligence from Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582: a doctor is not negligent...
- Bolitho Qualification
- The qualification to Bolam from Bolitho v. City and Hackney HA (1997) 4 All ER 771: the responsible body of medical opinion...
- Jacob Mathew Test
- The framework from Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 for criminal medical negligence under IPC § 304A (now...
- Martin D'Souza Safeguard
- The procedural protection from Martin D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1 requiring that before registering a criminal case against a...
- Montgomery V. Lanarkshire (2015)
- UK Supreme Court case replacing the Bolam test on risk disclosure with a patient-centred test: a doctor must take reasonable care to...
- NMC (India)
- The National Medical Commission, established under the NMC Act 2019, replacing the Medical Council of India. Comprises four boards (UGMEB, PGMEB, ARB,...
Explained in
- Medical Negligence and the Duty of CareWashington Supreme Court case in which ophthalmologist Thomas Carey was held negligent for not performing tonometry on a patient under 40, despite following pr...