Surely patients in a just society should not be penalized for having a genetic predisposition to a potentially fatal disease.The claim also pointed to guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease which similarly question the six-month sober rule, noting that transplant rejection and survival rates are similar between recipients with alcohol related disease and other recipients. After initially vigorously fighting Debra’s challenge, lawyers for the province approached her last May and convinced her to put her case on hold while transplant listing criteria were reviewed. The lawyers admitted that the research Debra presented “did not necessarily bolster their position”. Debra ended up pulling out of the agreement she made with the lawyers after a series of delay and backtracks. However, in the meantime, Trillium agreed to the pilot project.
I’m very proud that up to 97 or 98 people will get the opportunity to have a new life…nd I’m very hopeful the practice will continue.This pilot project will likely have a deep impact on patients with alcohol related liver disease. Currently, approximately 2,800 Canadians with alcoholic liver disease die annually. This project may decrease those numbers. We will continue to follow developments in this matter, and will provide updates as they become available. At Wise Health Law, we provide exceptional guidance on health law matters to public hospitals and other health-care organizations across the province. We monitor trends and developments in health care, medicine, and health law so that we can provide forward-thinking legal and risk management advice to each of our clients. Contact us online, or at 416-915-4234 for a consultation.
Earlier this year, Wise Health Law succeeded on a motion for summary judgment in a dental malpractice case on the basis that the limitation period had expired before the Statement of Claim was issued. The (unreported) decision was delivered orally on the day of the motion.
In part, the plaintiff argued that she did not discover her claim until the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “RCDSO” or “College”) rendered its decision, as she did not know if the defendant was negligent when she complained to the RCDSO, but merely had a “suspicion”.
In the midst of COVID-19, the proceedings of many health colleges, and consequently of the health professionals they regulate, have been in limbo while everyone finds a way forward.
On March 25, 2020, the Ontario government enacted the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020 (the “Act”) to help the process along.
The Act empowers statutory tribunals with more discretion over how proceedings before them are held.
Effective 11:59 p.m. on March 24, 2020, the Ontario government ordered the closure of “non-essential” workplaces. The list of “essential” workplaces included “health care professionals providing emergency care including dentists, optometrists and physiotherapists”.
The College of Chiropractors of Ontario (“CCO”) interprets this list as including chiropractors, and we agree.
So the question becomes – what is “emergency care”?