Diagnosing occupational disease: a new standard of care?
Is a physician civilly liable for failure to diagnose an occupational disease in his patient? Under principles of common-law tort, physicians are held to certain standards of care in treatment. When that standard is breached and a patient is injured, a negligence action may lie. Might a court find that a physician has breached that standard of care if he fails to include in his examination of thorough work history and evaluation of job exposures to toxic chemicals? A number of medical malpractice cases involving standards of care are analyzed and parallels are drawn to the occupational disease context. Although it is impossible to predict how courts will rule in a given case, it appears that it would be prudent for a physician to delve more deeply into his patient's work experience when a patient presents with puzzling symptoms. The standard use of a thorough work history might also lead to early discovery of an industry-wide or community-wide health problem.
D000062:Accidents, Occupational / Q000517:prevention & control; D000328:Adult; D002273:Carcinogens; D004781:Environmental Exposure; D004787:Environmental Pollution; D005260:Female; D006076:Government; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007878:Legislation as Topic; D008487:Medical History Taking; D009153:Mutagens; D009784:Occupational Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis*; D009787:Occupational Medicine / Q000592:standards*; D011247:Pregnancy; D013723:Teratogens; D014481:United States
D002273:Carcinogens; D009153:Mutagens; D013723:Teratogens