While surgical mishaps and other acute events can provide a clear set of facts to determine whether a plaintiff waited too long to file a suit, undiagnosed conditions continue to challenge California’s courts in determining how do deal with a healthcare provider’s defense based on the statute of limitations.

Nothing good can result when important information sent between a patient’s care providers is delayed. Including the patient in the communication process is not only the right thing to do, it can also help prevent an adverse event.

Though physicians may expect that staff will assist in properly instructing a patient on preparing for a procedure, the physician will still be responsible for those instructions having been carried out.

With the advent of electronic health records, office-based practitioners must also fight complacency with system-generated reminders for regular patient testing.

A new case from the Court of Appeal delves deeply into California law governing informed consent and negligent medical advice, starting with the threshold issue of whether a surgeon’s full discussion on a particular procedure will shield the physician from liability if he or she was negligent in recommending the surgery in the first place.