Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Accessory nerve injury.

Sara Bird1

  • 1MDA National. sbird@mdanational.com.au

Australian Family Physician
|July 6, 2006
PubMed
Summary

A Supreme Court ruling found a doctor negligent for not diagnosing a spinal accessory nerve injury after neck surgery. The negligence was in the postoperative care, not the surgical procedure itself.

Related Experiment Videos

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The pitfalls of prescribing for family and friends.

Australian prescriber·2016
Same author

Patients' use of social media: e-rating of doctors.

Australian family physician·2015
Same author

How to write a medico-legal report.

Australian family physician·2014
Same author

Advance care planning.

Australian family physician·2014
Same author

Genetic testing: medico-legal issues.

Australian family physician·2014
Same author

Mohammed's case.

Australian family physician·2014

Area of Science:

  • Neurosurgery
  • Medical Malpractice Law
  • Anatomy

Background:

  • A legal case reviewed a spinal accessory nerve injury sustained during lymph node mass excision in the neck's posterior triangle.
  • The case highlights the importance of accurate diagnosis and postoperative care in surgical procedures.

Observation:

  • The injury occurred during the excision of a lymph node mass.
  • The spinal accessory nerve is crucial for shoulder and neck movement.

Findings:

  • The medical practitioner was deemed negligent for failing to diagnose the nerve injury postoperatively.
  • The court differentiated between surgical error and diagnostic negligence.

Implications:

  • This judgment emphasizes the critical role of vigilant postoperative monitoring in preventing long-term patient harm.
  • It underscores the legal and ethical responsibilities of healthcare providers in managing iatrogenic injuries.