Apotex - contamination www.apotexterror.homestead.com www.pharmaholocaust.com
I live like a walking death in twilight zone / some where in between death and a life being deprived of all Human Rights and Constitutional / Law
protection by habitual offenders. I was assessed by three (3) independent psychiatrists to eliminate offender's speculations about my insanity
prompting "delusions" etc. All psychiatrists stated clearly, that I am sane /I do NOT have/had any mental illness. No family history of any.
WSiB SUBJECTS I.W. TO TREMENDOUS PHARMACOLOGICAL / SURGICAL ABUSE / TORTURE
Dear Madams and Sirs,
WSiB SUBJECTS I.W. TO TREMENDOUS PHARMACOLOGICAL / SURGICAL ABUSE / TORTURE
An example of my communication with one of follow Injured Workers from Ontario:
Well, IN YOUR CASE AS PLANNED BY WSiB ALL ALONG , WSiB implements another tool / weapon from their arsenal of crime: psychological chaos, frustration, sense of hopelessness, physical /emotional exhaustion and much , much more of it.
"WSiB wants to try and enforce me to DO something illegal, dangerous, and counter productive ? “ well, they are not trying , they are DOING IT ALL ALONG JUST YOU DID NOT RECOGNIZE IT RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING.
This is premeditated and logical course of action on their behalf!
They are so good at it , that Injured Workers are being entrapped in that scum.
WSiB walks INNOCENT , SUFFERING, WITH OUT LEGAL ASSISTANCE, OBLIGATED TO OBEY BY SO CALLED LEGISLATIVE /RULES ? Injured Workers (VICTIMS) right into their ends/ catastrophe /PERMANENT DISABILITY /DEATH! etc.
AND THOSE CRIMINALS / PREDATORS / ENEMY OF WORK FORCE / PUBLICS ENEMY ARE PROTECTED BY CRIMINAL IMMUNITY ?!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU ARE NOT ONLY AN INJURED WORKER BY AN ACCIDENT, YOU ARE SEVERELY DISABLED BY DIRECT / CRIMINAL/ NEGLECTFUL / EXPERIMENTAL ACTS BY WSiB!
You are still oblivious about extend and permanence of damage inflicted on you by WSiB!
IT WILL SERVICE WITH TIME.
YOUR CONDITIONS (THANKS TO WSiB) TURNED OUT TO BE CONTINUOUSLY DEGENERATIVE AND SNOW BOWLING !
YOUR FUTURE LOOKS BLANK YOUR HEALTH WILL DETERIORATE IF THEY DO NOT STOP TO SUBJECT YOU TO THOSE INJECTIONS AND/OR SCALPEL INTERVENTIONS!
THERE ARE NOT ANY WHAT SO EVER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BY ANY CLINICAL TRIALS , THAT THOSE INJECTIONS WILL REVERSE YOUR CONDITIONS.
WSiB attempts to suppress your symptoms just for the time of medical re-assessments before due time of 72 months.
GET IT ONCE FOR ALL.
WSiB does not work for you!
They are not care about your best interest!
Get it!
THIS IS ABOUT YOUR LIFE!
THIS IS ABOUT FUTURE OF YOUR FAMILY!
BY NOT RETURNING YOUR CALLS, WSiB trays to make you to get confused and to rebel !!!!!
WSiB needs you to provide for them reasons (of non compliance) to restrict /eliminate your entitlements!
YOU DO HAVE STRONG LEGAL CASE AGAINST WHOM WSiB or EX-EMPLOYER?
TO BE HONEST, UNFORTUNATELY (UNLESS COURT /LEGISLATIVE) INTRODUCES ANY AMENDMENT / OVER RULES PRESENT STATUS QUO YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY CASES.
DO YOU WANT TO LITIGATE AGAINST EMPLOYER ? -SORRY , YOUR CONDITIONS AT THE PRESENT ARE FAR BEYOND WHAT YOU SUSTAINED IN YOUR ACCIDENT.
AT THE PRESENT THE CONDITIONS ARE RESULT OF WSiB's NEGLECT / MISMANAGEMENT AND FORCIBLE EXPERIMENTAL MEDICAL TREATMENTS.
ON OTHER HAND YOU CAN NOT LITIGATE AGAINST WSiB because those criminals hide behind CRIMINAL IMMUNITY !!!
YOUR CASE MUST GO IN FRONT OF HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND, WHICH IN TURN WILL SEND YOUR CASE BACK TO WSiB / WSIAT FOR REASSESSMENT.
RING OF INJUSTICE!
YOUR CASE , ALONG WITH OTHER CASES OF I.W. MUST BE INVESTIGATED BY PARLIAMENT / LEGAL ASSEMBLY / CONSTITUTIONAL COURT/ INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS / UN / PUBLIC INQUIRY / GOVERNMENT's EMERGENCE TASK FORCE / COURT FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN STRASBOURG etc.
ONLY GENERAL PUBLIC COLLECTIVE OUTCRY CAN CHANGE SITUATION AND ELIMINATE LEGALIZED /SYSTEMIC CRIME FROM SOCIETY'S ORGANISM!
WHAT EVER THEY (WSiB) INPOSE ON YOU MEDICALLY ASK THEM TO PROVIDE IN WRITING REASSURANCES , THAT SUCH TREATMENT WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT YOU /YOUR SYSTEM DIRECTLY / INDIRECTLY IN IMMEDIATE REACTIONS NOR ON LONG TERM.
SUCH LETTER WOULD LEGALLY OBLIGATE WSiB to be responsible for THEIR ACTIONS / DETERIORATION of your health.
IF THEY REFUSE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH SUCH LETTER , THEN YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO COMPLY CANADA / ONTARIO HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT ALLOWS YOU AND ANY ONE TO REFUSE TO DO ANY THING WHAT IN YOUR ASSESSMENT ENDANGERS YOUR HEALTH /LIFE!!!!
YOU AND ALL INJURED WORKERS DO HAVE LEGAL / LEGISLATED TOLL TO NOT OBEY WSiB!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WSiB Ontario / WCB Canada DO FORCE I.W. TO SUBORDINATE TO DOCTORS TREATMENTS AND BE SUBJECTED TO TREMENDOUS PHARMACOLOGICAL / SURGICAL ABUSE / TORTURE patient's / I.W.'s consent IS NEEDED.
Any medical /pharmacological intervention can be refused by I.W. and WSiB / WCB CAN NOT PENALIZE I.W. (Injured Workers) IN THE LIGHT OF LAW, BUT CONTRARY TO THIS DOES IT ANY WAY - BIG TIME, CRIMINAL/ BULLY WAY!
"By Cobb, William G
HEADNOTE
Analyzing the Materiality of the Risk, Causation, and Expert Testimony Requirements
A PATIENT'S physician should provide him or her with relevant and material information regarding the physician's proposed treatment. Disclosing information relating to patient treatment enables the patient to knowingly consent to or to reject the treatment that the health care provider is proposing. As Justice Cardozo stated in the often cited case of Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation / treatment without his patient's consent, commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages.
Based upon the disclosure (or nondisclosure) of any risks attendant to such treatment, the issue ultimately becomes whether a reasonably prudent person in the patient's position (or, in certain jurisdictions, whether the patient him or herself) would have consented to the treatment or procedure in light of those risks. The failure to obtain consent for treatment was traditionally considered a battery (or as Justice Cardozo characterized it, an assault). However, most jurisdictions now simply view the failure to address material risks of treatment with the patient as a form of malpractice described as negligent nondisclosure.3
The material information which should be discussed with the patient is that information which would be considered by the reasonably prudent patient as significant when evaluating whether to proceed with the treatment. Information or risks that the reasonably prudent patient knows and commonly appreciates are not material. There is no duty to disclose risks where the procedure is simple, the danger is remote, and it is commonly understood to be remote.4 Conversely, some jurisdictions have held that where a procedure is inherently associated with a known risk of death or serious injury, the health care provider must disclose those risks and discuss the potential complications with the patient, regardless of how remote the risk may be.5
Therefore, the first step in defending an informed consent case is ascertaining whether the non-disclosed risk was material. Expert testimony may be required to determine whether the risk was material, depending upon the jurisdiction where the case is filed. Almost every jurisdiction has embraced the concept that the patient should be informed of material risks. Jurisdictions part company on the issue of whether informed consent trials require expert testimony with respect to whether a health care provider under similar circumstances would have discussed those material risks with the patient.
Most of the cases interpreting the informed consent issue have arisen in the context of medical malpractice lawsuits. However, it appears that those jurisdictions which have considered the issue have applied the medical malpractice dogma to other health care professionals, such as chiropractors.6 Defense practitioners should also be aware that the forum where the cause of action arose may have enacted specific state statutes governing the disclosure of information to a patient.
There are two schools of thought for determining whether a material risk should have been discussed with the patient. One approach allows jurors without the assistance (or necessity) of expert testimony to place themselves “in the position of a patient and decide whether, under the circumstances, the patient should have been told of the risk. This approach is referred to as the material risk or patient oriented standard, and it is based upon the concept that a patient should be adequately informed about risks prior to choosing to undergo a medical procedure.9
The other viewpoint on informed consent has been labeled the professional standard or the physician oriented standard. This approach requires expert testimony from a qualified health care provider who, based upon the standard in the appropriate scientific community, decides whether the information is material and should be disclosed to the patient.10
Defense practitioners must ascertain whether the forum jurisdiction embraces the material risk standard or the professional physician oriented standard, the latter of which requires expert testimony with respect to whether the health care provider should have disclosed any risks to the patient. In either category of jurisdictions, however, except in a few rare instances (such as where a surgeon neglected to remove a surgical instrument and failed to disclose this action with the patient ), expert testimony will be required to discuss the materiality, if any, of the risk. Risks which are immaterial as a matter of law will not need to be addressed with the patient.
The last step of the analysis pertains to causation. Defense practitioners must determine whether the jurisdiction applies a subjective or objective test with respect to whether the patient would not have consented to the procedure if he or she had have been informed of the risk. The second component of the causation test requires proof that the non-consensual procedure actually caused plaintiffs injuries.
I. The Two Approaches of Informed Consent
A. The Material Risk (Patient-Oriented) Standard
The patient-based standard of informed consent stresses the patient's right to self-determination and the fiduciary relationship between a doctor and a patient. This standard balances the patient's need for material information with a physician's discretion. It requires a physician to disclose material information to the patient even if the patient does not ask questions.12
The material risk standard was discussed in greater detail in Woolley v. Henderson, a 1980 Maine Supreme Court decision.13 The Court analyzed the rationale behind the material risk standard in the following way:
[A]n increasing number of courts hold that because a physician's obligation to disclose therapeutic risks and alternatives arises from the patient's right of physical self-determination, the disclosure duty should be measured by the patient's need for information rather than by the standards of the medical profession. These courts reason that physicians have a legal obligation adequately to disclose risk and option information that is material to the patient's decision to undergo treatment and that expert testimony as to medical standards is not required to establish this duty. Under this material-risk standard, although expert medical testimony may be necessary to establish the undisclosed risk as a known danger of the procedure, the jury can decide without the necessity of a medical expert whether a reasonable person in the patient's position would have considered the risk significant in making his decision.14
Under this approach, the nature of the risk associated with the treatment is brought to the jury's attention, usually through expert testimony. Even those jurisdictions which have adopted the material risk standard also embrace the concept that if a risk itself is not material, it need not be addressed with the patient.15 Although expert testimony will not be received in these jurisdictions as to whether the risks should have been discussed with the patient, expert testimony will nevertheless be required to evaluate the materiality (or severity or significance) of the risk.
However, assuming the risk is material, or even assuming there is a dispute among experts as to the materiality of the risk, the jury without expert testimony will be allowed to determine whether the patient consented to the procedure with adequate knowledge. Without relying on what the standard may or may not be in the health care community, the jury is permitted in its own discretion to determine whether the health care provider should have disclosed such risks with the patient.
The plaintiff then has the burden of going forward with evidence of nondisclosure. Once the plaintiff has established that the physician failed to address known material risks, then the physician typically bears the burden of submitting evidence to justify nondislosure or to show that a legally sufficient disclosure was made.16
Assuming the jury finds the risk was material and the physician failed to adequately address the risk of treatment, the next step in the material risk jurisdiction (as well as in a “professional standard� jurisdiction) is to determine whether the reasonably prudent patient (or in some jurisdictions, the plaintiff) would or would not have consented to that treatment.
B. The Professional Disclosure (Physician-Oriented) Standard
A small majority of jurisdictions has adopted the professional disclosure or physician oriented standard. Under this approach, as the Court of Appeals for South Carolina explained in Hook v. Rothstein, the physician is required to disclose those risks which a reasonable medical practitioner of like training would disclose under the same or similar circumstances.17 The Hook court went on to note that, [i]n most cases, the questions of whether and to what extent a physician has a duty to disclose a particular risk are to be determined by expert testimony which establishes the physician's departure from that standard.18
The rationale for this approach is that an informed consent case is no different from any other malpractice action wherein a departure from the accepted standard of care must be established by expert testimony. As the Supreme Court of Missouri stated in Aiken v. Clary:
The basic philosophy in malpractice cases is that the doctor is negligent by reason of the fact that he has failed to adhere to a standard of reasonable medical care, and that consequently the service rendered was substandard and negligent. In our judgment, this is true whether the alleged malpractice consists of improper care and treatment (the usual malpractice case) or whether it is based, as here, on an alleged failure to inform the patient sufficiently to enable him to make a judgment and give an informed consent if he concludes to accept the recommended treatment.19
The Missouri Supreme Court in Aiken explained both the rationale for the adoption of the professional standard and the manner and quantum of proof required to establish an informed consent case in a jurisdiction which employs the professional standard:
We have . . . concluded that the question of what disclosure of risks incident to proposed treatment should be made in a particular situation involves medical judgment and that expert testimony thereon should be required in malpractice cases involving that issue. The question to be determined by the jury is whether defendant doctor in that particular situation failed to adhere to a standard of reasonable care. These are not matters of common knowledge or within the experience of laymen. Expert medical evidence thereon is just as necessary as is such testimony on the correctness of the handling in cases involving surgery or treatment.20
Citing from an earlier decision, Aiken noted that:
Without the aid of expert medical testimony in this case a jury could not, without resorting to conjecture and surmise or by setting up an arbitrary standard of their own, determine that defendants failed to exercise their skill and use the care exercised by the ordinarily skillful, careful and prudent physician acting under the same or similar circumstances.21
The Aiken decision recognized there are often many factors to consider, beyond mere statistics, when deciding whether to discuss with a patient those risks that are recognized to be associated with the treatment:
The question is not what, regarding the risks involved, the juror would relate to the patient under the same or similar circumstances, or even what a reasonable man would relate, but what a reasonable medical practitioner would do. Such practitioner would consider the state of the patient's health, the condition of his heart and nervous system, his mental state, and would take into account, among other things, whether the risks involved were mere remote possibilities or something which occurred with some sort of frequency or regularity. This determination involves medical judgment as to whether disclosure of possible risks may have such an adverse effect on the patient as to jeopardize success of the proposed therapy, no matter how expertly performed. . .After a consideration of these and other proper factors, a reasonable medical practitioner, under some circumstances, would make full disclosure of all risks which had any reasonable likelihood of occurring, but in others the facts and circumstances would dictate a guarded or limited disclosure. In some cases the judgment would be less difficult than in others, but, in any event, it would be a medical judgment.22
The Aiken Court concluded that the plaintiff was required to offer expert testimony to show what disclosures a reasonable medical practitioner, under the same or similar circumstances, would have made. . 23 In other words, the Court concluded that the disclosures as made by the defendant do not meet the standard of what a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed under the same or similar circumstances.24
The Supreme Court of Maine also reviewed the rationale supporting the professional standard in its subsequent decision, Woolley v. Henderson, noting first that whether the physician has acted unreasonably is often a question of professional judgment.25 As the Aiken court discussed, Woolley similarly predicated its analysis on the fact that more than mere statistical risks of complications may drive the physician's decision.
The Woolley and Aiken decisions were predicated on the rationale that requiring a plaintiff to prove an informed consent claim with expert testimony imposes no greater burden on a plaintiff than it does in any other medical malpractice case where the plaintiff is required to establish a deviation from the accepted standard of care:
Moreover, a rule that allows a plaintiff to establish the existence and extent of the defendant-physician's disclosure obligation without regard to medical standards hardly diminishes the importance of expert medical testimony or absolves the plaintiff from producing such evidence on other issues in the case. The courts that have adopted this rule recognize the necessity, in the usual case, of medical evidence to identify the known risks of treatment, the nature of available alternatives and the cause of any injury or disability suffered by the plaintiff and would allow the defendant to show by expert testimony that his conduct comported with medical standards. Furthermore, when the patient also claims negligent diagnosis or treatment, he will have secured medical experts to testify to the applicable standard of care. It certainly adds little to the burden of the plaintiff on his informed consent claim to require him to produce medical evidence that the physicianâs nondisclosure departed from prevailing standards of practice.26
The Woolley decision also contained an excellent discussion of the countervailing considerations that affect a physician's decision making process and that militate against the adopting the material risk standard. The Court noted that rather than relying on his professional judgment, a physician practicing in a material-risk jurisdiction may well feel compelled at his peril to disclose every imaginable risk and alternative to treatment.27
Woolley continued its discussion by recognizing the practical implications of dispensing with expert medical testimony to establish the requisite disclosure duty in a case by noting that “[i]nherent in such a rule is the potential danger that a jury, composed of laymen and gifted with the benefit of hindsight, will divine the breach of a disclosure obligation largely on the basis of the unfortunate result.28 The Court noted that the matters involved in these types of cases are often quite complicated and technical, and the risk of leaving these decisions to lay witnesses “would pose dangers and disadvantages which far outweigh the benefits and advantages a modern trend rule would bestow on patient-plaintiffs. In effect, the relaxed modern trend rule permits lay witnesses to express, when all is said and done, what amounts to a medical opinion.29 The Court concluded by pointing out that a patient's doctor, as well as his or her patient, would be jeopardized by a rule that would require discussions of every possible risk available to the patient.
Finally, we believe that legal principles designed to provide compensation to persons injured by bad professional practice should not unduly intrude upon the intimate physician-patient relationship. Although the material-risk theory may make it easier for some plaintiffs to recover, it does so by placing good medical practice in jeopardy. The physician's attention must be focused on the best interests of his patient and not on what a lay jury, unschooled in medicine, may, after the fact, conclude he should have disclosed. As a North Carolina court noted, (t)o adopt the (material-risk standard) would result in requiring every doctor to spend a great deal of unnecessary time in going over with every patient every possible effect of any proposed treatment. The doctor should not have to practice his profession with the knowledge that every consultation with every patient with respect to future treatment contains a potential lawsuit. This approach would necessarily result in the doctor's inability to give the best interest of his patient primary importance.30
Summarizing its holding, the Supreme Court of Maine stated [w]e hold, therefore, that the scope of a physician's duty to disclose is measured by those communications a reasonable medical practitioner in that branch of medicine would make under the same or similar circumstances and that the plaintiff must ordinarily establish this standard by expert medical evidence.31
Thus, there are two diametrically opposed approaches to informed consent cases. At the outset of the defense of an informed consent malpractice case, it is defense counsel's responsibility to ascertain whether the trial court will be governed by the material risk standard or the professional judgment standard. Following this article is an Appendix that identifies those jurisdictions that have ruled on informed consent cases and identifies which of the two standards the jurisdiction has adopted. The Appendix also reports whether the jurisdiction utilizes the objective or subjective approach on causation, which is discussed in greater detail in Section III.
II. Materiality of Risk
Courts agree that only those risks which are viewed as material must be disclosed, regardless of whether the forum embraces the patient/material risk or the professional/physician standard. However, what is or is not deemed material is not subject to a clear definition, as one of the leading informed consent cases, Canterbury v. Spence, noted:
There is no bright line separating the significant from the insignificant; the answer in any case must abide by a rule of reason. Some dangers infection, for example are inherent in any operation; there is no obligation to communicate those of which persons of average sophistication are aware. Even more clearly, the physician bears no responsibility for discussion of hazards the patient has already discovered, or those having no apparent materiality to patients decision on therapy. The disclosure doctrine, like others marking lines between permissible and impermissible behavior in medical practice, is in essence a requirement of conduct prudent under the circumstances. Whenever nondisclosure of particular risk information is open to debate by reasonable-minded men, the issue is for the finder of the facts.32
As the Canterbury language suggests, there is no clear cut definition of materiality. Case law suggests that a risk which is not material as a matter of law, or is commonly understood to be obvious, or already known to the patient need not be addressed with the patient.33 Risk has been found material where there is a 3% chance of death, paralysis, or other serious injury or where 1% chance of hearing loss was foreseeable.34 On the other hand, a risk was not determined to be significant where there was only a 1.5% chance of the loss of an eye or a 0.001% chance of death.35
A risk is considered to be material when a reasonable person in the patient's position would likely attach significance to the potential risk in deciding whether or not to forego the treatment.36 The first step in determining materiality requires expert testimony to define the existence and nature of the risk and the likelihood of its occurrence.37 The second step is left to the trier of fact to ascertain whether or not the risk is the type of harm that a reasonable person in the patient's position would have considered in deciding whether to proceed with treatment.38
Some courts have held that all risks that could potentially effect the patient's decision must be disclosed.39 However, materiality is a function of the severity of the risk and the probability of the risk. Thus, if the probability of the risk is extremely low, then the risk cannot be considered a material factor in a rational patient's decision.40 A patient has a right to know those hazards which a reasonably prudent person, in the patient's position, would probably attach significance to when deciding whether to undergo the treatment. If the risk meets this criterion, it is material and must be disclosed.41
In Smith v. Shannon, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a physician's liability could not per se be predicated on the physician's failure to inform the patient of all risks involved with the patient's procedure, but rather, depended upon whether undisclosed risks were material. Witnesses described the risks that the Court held were not material and did not have to be discussed with the patient as remote, very rare, occasional, and not material.42
In Pauscher v. Iowa Methodist Medical Center, the Iowa Supreme Court similarly held that risks must be material in order to warrant disclosure. In Pauscher, the undisclosed risk was that the treatment carried a risk of death in one in 100,000 cases. The Court held that this risk was not deemed materially significant, stating that no prudent juror could reasonably have considered the [1 in 100,000] risk of permanent paresthesia material to a decision on whether to consent to the procedure.43
One of the leading patient oriented standard cases, Cobbs v. Grant, also embraced the concept that only material risks must be disclosed, stating that the test for determining whether a potential peril must be divulged is its materiality to the patient's decision.44 The court went on to state that such a disclosure need not be made if the procedure is simple and the danger remote and commonly appreciated to be remote.45
The Cobbs decision was predicated in part on a civil jury instruction, which provides jurors with the following definitions regarding physicians duties to disclose risks:
[A] physician has a duty to disclose to the patient all material information to enable the patient to make an informed decision regarding the proposed operation or treatment.
Material information is information which the physician knows or should know would be regarded as significant by a reasonable person in the patient's position when deciding to accept or reject a recommended medical procedure. To be material a fact must also be one which is not commonly appreciated.
The physician does not have a duty to make disclosure of risks when the patient requests that [the patient] not be so informed or where the procedure is simple and the danger remote and commonly understood to be remote.
Likewise, there is no duty to discuss minor risks inherent in common procedures, when those procedures very seldom result in serious ill effects.
However, when a procedure inherently involves a known risk of death or serious bodily harm, the physician has a duty to disclose to the patient the possibility of such an outcome and to explain, in lay terms, the complications that might possibly occur.46
Regrettably, the Book of Approved Jury Instruction (BAJI) may create more confusion than it attempts to resolve. For example, the instruction above defines material information from the standpoint of what the physician knows or should know is significant. This definition was taken, seemingly, from the D.C. Circuit's decision in Canterbury wherein the Court held:
From these considerations we derive the breadth of the disclosure of risks legally to be required. The scope of the standard is not subjective as to either the physician or the patient; it remains objective with due regard for the patient's informational needs and with suitable leeway for the physician's situation. In broad outline, we agree that [a] risk is thus material when a reasonable person, in what the physician knows or should know to be the patient's position, would be likely to attach significance to the risk or cluster of risks in deciding whether or not to forego the proposed therapy.47
Nevertheless, BAJI 6.11 suggests that California would be one of the jurisdictions which adheres to the professional standard and would require expert testimony to demonstrate what the physician should or should not know. However, California is a material risk jurisdiction where experts are not involved in the trial process other than in ascertaining whether the risk is material.48
Furthermore, the instruction commands that if the risk involves a chance of death or serious bodily harm, the physician must address it with the patient, apparently regardless of how remote that risk may be. If one interprets BAJI 6.11 in this fashion, then it carries particular implications to physicians practicing in California.
In the recent Nevada Supreme Court decision of Bronneke v. Rutherford, the Court addressed an informed consent claim. arising from a chiropractic malpractice lawsuit. The Court discussed evidence submitted at trial regarding the risk of stroke being caused by a chiropractic adjustment. Plaintiffs expert in the Bronneke case testified that the correlation between a stroke and an adjustment is that the former occurs anywhere between one in every 400,000 adjustments to one in six million. The defendant chiropractor's expert stated the consensus in the chiropractic community was that a stroke would occur once in one million adjustments. This expert also testified that new studies showed the risk to be one in 5,850,000. Of these remote risks, the Nevada Supreme Court stated that given the evidence in the record that risk of stroke is extremely remote following [an adjustment], a reasonable chiropractor would not have deemed the risk material enough to require disclosure.49
While there appears to be no dispute among the jurisdictions that a material risk must be disclosed to and addressed with the patient, defining whether a risk is or is not material is more problematic. If defense practitioners can establish that the risk was not material as a matter of law, then summary judgment may be available to the health care provider.
III. Causation
The last step in the informed consent analysis is to determine whether the forum jurisdiction employs an objective or subjective test of causation. The objective test is generally described as whether a reasonably prudent person in the patient's position would have consented to the treatment had the risk been disclosed. The subjective test is one which determines whether the patient (i.e., the plaintiff) would have consented to the procedure after being informed of the risk.
The Woolley decision provides the rationale for Maine's adoption of the objective test:
The question we. . .address is whether this second causation requirement is to be judged by a subjective test whether the particular plaintiff would have undergone the treatment had he been adequately informed or by an objective test whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would have submitted to the procedure had there been adequate disclosure, (citations omitted). In the instant case, the presiding Justice instructed the jury, without objection, that it was to apply the objective causation standard.
We believe that the subjective test is an unsatisfactory gauge for determining causality in informed consent actions and, therefore, in accord with those courts that have squarely addressed this issue, we hold that causation should be judged by an objective standard.50
The Maryland Supreme Court's decision in Sard v. Hardy persuasively summarized the rationale in support of the objective standard:
[I]f a subjective standard were applied, the testimony of the plaintiff as to what he would have hypothetically done would be the controlling consideration. Thus, proof of causation under a subjective standard would ultimately turn on the credibility of the hindsight of a person seeking recovery after he had experienced a most undesirable result, (citation omitted) Such a test puts the physician in jeopardy of the patient's hindsight and bitterness.51
Under the objective test, a causal connection exists between the defendant's failure to disclose and the plaintiffs injury only if a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff would have declined the treatment had he been apprised of the risk that resulted in harm. [T]he patient's hindsight testimony as to what he would have hypothetically done, though relevant, is not determinative of the issue.52
Despite the seemingly persuasive logic attendant to the adoption of the objective standard, nevertheless, there are several jurisdictions which hold that the causation issue must be resolved by plaintiffs testimony that had he or she been informed of the risks, he or she would not have consented to the procedure. The Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision in Wllkinson v. Vessey is an example of the subjective approach:
In order to prevail in an action, where recovery is based upon the doctrine of informed consent, the plaintiff must prove that if he had been informed of the material risk, he would not have consented to the procedure and that he had been injured as a result of submitting to the procedure.53
Most recently in Nevada, after discussing the remote correlation between strokes and cervical manipulations, the Nevada Supreme Court, in Bronneke v. Rutherford, rejected plaintiffs informed consent claim because the plaintiff did not make an offer of proof at the pretrial hearing or by affidavit that, had he been informed of the risk of stroke, he would have refused treatment.54 This holding suggests Nevada would embrace the subjective approach. However, in an earlier Nevada medical malpractice case, Smith v. Cotter, the Court held that not only must the evidence show the patient would have refused the surgery. . .the patient's assertion the patient would have refused the treatment must be reasonable under the circumstances.55
Thus, several jurisdictions, including Nevada and Massachusetts,56 actually employ a hybrid approach to evaluating causation, i.e., a combined subjective-objective analysis. This approach requires proof that not only would the plaintiff have declined treatment had he or she been advised of the risks of treatment but that objectively it would have been reasonable for him or her to have done so.
As to what constitutes reasonableness with respect to plaintiffs assertion at trial that he or she would have refused treatment, Smith v. Cotter offers these guidelines:
The plaintiffs assertion that he or she would have refused the treatment must be reasonable under the circumstances. In determining reasonableness, the court may consider the testimony of the patient as well as medical evidence regarding the risks of remaining untreated, the possible alternative treatments and the risks and expected benefits of alternative treatments. This evidence may also include testimony from witnesses who observed the patients at the time they elected to undergo; the treatment. No single type of evidence is to be conclusive; rather, all the evidence must be considered by the fact-finder in determining whether, had the full extent of the risk been known, the plaintiff would have reasonably refused treatment.57
Finally, while this article's intent is not to identify the specific information that a health case professional should communicate to a patient, the physician should ensure that the patient is furnished facts and information sufficient to inform the patient of the following:
1) The nature of the procedure to be, undertaken.
2) The material risks inherent in such treatment, particularly if the risk inherently involves a known risk of; death or serious bodily harm.
3) The probability that those risks may occur.
4) The availability and nature of alternative treatment options, if any.
5) The risks and dangers attendant to remaining untreated.
The informed consent paradigm should not be solely relegated to a simple form, although written confirmation to the patient to memorialize the process is always advisable. Defense practitioners should encourage physicians to incorporate a process that notifies patients of potential risks, thereby allowing the patients to voluntarily accept the proposed treatment plan after they have been fully advised.
VI. Conclusion
The indispensable first step that defense attorneys must undertake is ascertaining which standard (patient-oriented or physician-oriented) the forum jurisdiction employs in informed consent cases. The next step is determining the materiality of the risk, which will likely require expert witness involvement. Materiality of the risk may actually provide a basis for a favorable pretrial resolution of the malpractice claim. The final step involves causation and ascertaining, in light of the failure to address the risk, whether the reasonably prudent patient or the plaintiff- would or would not have proceeded with the treatment and, if not, whether the treatment was indeed a cause of plaintiff's injuries."
Regards,
Apotex's/ WSiB's / Carl Peterson's (Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP /
Government's of Ontario victim
1. ONLY GENERAL PUBLIC COLLECTIVE OUTCRY CAN CHANGE SITUATION AND ELIMINATE “LEGALIZED /SYSTEMIC CRIME ” FROM SOCIETY’S ORGANISM!
WHAT EVER WSiB /Doctors IMPOSE ON YOU MEDICALLY— ASK THEM TO PROVIDE IN WRITING REASSURANCES , THAT SUCH TREATMENT WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT YOU /YOUR SYSTEM DIRECTLY / INDIRECTLY IN IMMEDIATE REACTIONS NOR ON LONG TERM.
SUCH “LETTER ” WOULD LEGALLY OBLIGATE WSiB to be responsible for THEIR ACTIONS / DETERIORATION of your health.
IF THEY REFUSE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH SUCH LETTER , THEN YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO COMPLY –
CANADA / ONTARIO HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT ALLOWS YOU AND ANY ONE TO REFUSE TO DO ANY THING WHAT IN YOUR ASSESSMENT ENDANGERS YOUR HEALTH /LIFE!
YOU AND ALL INJURED WORKERS DO HAVE LEGAL / LEGISLATED “TOLL” TO NOT OBEY WSiB /Doctors IN REGARD TO IMPOSED BY WSiB /DOCTORS MEDICAL TREATMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ABOVE ALL MEDICAL PROBLEMS DUE TO ACCIDENTS , I.W. SUFFER RELENTLESS DEPRESSION DUE TO DEALINGS WITH WSiB and changed reality.
We all go through ups and downs in our mood. Sadness is a normal reaction to life’s struggles, setbacks, and disappointments. Many people use the word “depression” to explain these kinds of feelings, but depression is much more than just sadness.
Some people describe depression as “living in a black hole” or having a feeling of impending doom. However, some depressed people don’t feel sad at all—they may feel lifeless, empty, and apathetic, or men in particular may even feel angry, aggressive, and restless.
Whatever the symptoms, depression is different from normal sadness in that it engulfs your day-to-day life, interfering with your ability to work, study, eat, sleep, and have fun etc. The feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and worthlessness are intense and unrelenting, with little, if any, relief.
Depression is a major risk factor for suicide. The deep despair and hopelessness that goes along with depression can make suicide feel like the only way to escape the pain.
Thoughts of death or suicide are a serious symptom of depression, so take any suicidal talk or behavior seriously.
It’s not just a warning sign that the person is thinking about suicide: it’s a cry for help.
Depression often looks different in men and women, and in young people and older adults. An awareness of these differences helps ensure that the problem is recognized and treated.
Depression is a loaded word in our culture. Many associate it, however wrongly, with a sign of weakness and excessive emotion. This is especially true with men. Depressed men are less likely than women to acknowledge feelings of self-loathing and hopelessness. Instead, they tend to complain about fatigue, irritability, sleep problems, and loss of interest in work and hobbies. Other signs and symptoms of depression in men include anger, aggression, violence, reckless behavior, and substance abuse. Even though depression rates for women are twice as high as those in men, men are a higher suicide risk, especially older men.
Depression comes in many shapes and forms. The different types of depression have unique symptoms, causes, and effects. Knowing what type of depression you have can help you manage your symptoms and get the most effective treatment.
ONE OF MY MANY SIDE EFFECTS DUE TO MY EXPERIENCES – Bipolar Disorder- When Depression is Just One Side of the Coin
Adverse reactions to psychiatric / antidepressant medications (treatment / exposure induced) are often diagnosed as bipolar disorder when the symptoms may be entirely iatrogenic (treatment / exposure induced).
Psychiatric / antidepressant (AMONG OTHERS) medications do cause emergence of anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, mania, and other unusual changes in behavior, worsening of depression, and suicidal ideation, especially early during antidepressant treatment and when the dose is adjusted up or down. Families and caregivers of patients should be advised to look for the emergence of such symptoms on a day-to-day basis, since changes may be abrupt. Symptoms such as these may be associated with an increased risk for suicidal thinking and behavior. There has been a long-standing concern, that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidality in certain patients during the early phases of treatment.
Withdrawal can often be more dangerous than continuing on a medication. It is important to withdraw extremely slowly from these drugs, usually over a period of a year or more, under the supervision of a qualified specialist. Antidepressants have been recognized as potential inducers of mania and psychosis. Is reported that over 200,000 people a year enter a hospital with antidepressant-associated mania and/or psychosis.
Adverse reactions are most likely to occur when starting or discontinuing the drug, increasing or lowering the dose or when switching from one SSRI to another or mixing drugs. Adverse reactions are often diagnosed as bipolar disorder when the symptoms may be entirely iatrogenic (treatment /exposure induced). Withdrawal, especially abrupt withdrawal, from any of these medications can cause severe neuropsychiatric and physical symptoms (which do have bearing on cardiovascular system and many more). I was addicted to many of those drugs and abruptly withdrawn by Company. FDA published a Public Health Advisory that reiterates several of these side effects and states (in part) “Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity, akathisia (severe restlessness), hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and non-psychiatric.” PAXIL interacts with other Inhibitors. Paroxetine will elevate plasma levels of thioridazine etc.
Use of / exposure to antipsychotic drugs and IV drug abuse of MPTP which inhibits the function of mitochondria within the nerve cells of the brain, Environmental toxins play a role in Parkinson’s disease. Exposure to psychiatric / antidepressants drugs has potential to cause symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease.
Antidepressant induced violence / suicide at work is documented.
Bipolar disorder, also known as manic depression, is characterized by cycling mood changes. Episodes of depression alternate with manic episodes, which can include impulsive behavior, hyperactivity, rapid speech, and little to no sleep. Typically, the switch from one mood extreme to the other is gradual, with each manic or depressive episode lasting for at least several weeks. When depressed, a person with bipolar disorder exhibits the usual symptoms of major depression. However, the treatments for bipolar depression are very different. In fact, antidepressants can make bipolar depression worse.
I am so depressed at all the time. I’ve dealt with / suffered from depression and anxiety in the past few years, but now this is OFF THE CHART. The first few days this started I couldn’t eat, I would try to sleep but have panic attacks constantly and wake up drenched in sweat. I think many Doctors have the mind set that “their way” is the best way. I’m so scared to take any medications . I feel like I’m stuck in this depression, the more I think about how I feel the more anxious I get, the more depressed I feel. Panic attacks can put you on a different plane in this world. I felt like I had no control over my life. I am going through an extremely horrible and depressing time. Depression is not just a state of mind — it is a physical problem as well.
I feel like everything seems “different”, my surroundings and just me in general. I just stay in bed , scared and completely hopeless. After all those exposures to advanced structural composite materials /chemicals used in the manufacturing processes which have been classified as to have a co- carcinogenic and/or synergistic effect as result of Torpharm/Apotex’s negligence I have been having terrible shakiness , medical/psychological problems. Now I’ve convinced myself (due to medical reports), that I have some horrible diseases and am dying and my family /children won’t grow up with their parent. I’m so scared. None of the doctors I’ve seen admit it’s from the drugs.
Many Doctor’s statements are ridiculing and consciously ignoring fact , that my medical conditions are directly related to prolonged and unprotected exposure to drugs at work ( 6.5 years). Despite my repeated attempts to focus Doctors attention on the real source of my problems, most Doctors refused to talk about work connection with my conditions.
The human nervous system is particularly vulnerable to toxic-chemical insults. Many chemicals can permanently disrupt nervous system function.
I was put on many meds, which made everything worse. I couldn’t sleep and had some other symptoms… I have been unable to get out of bed for long periods of time….:) I’ve stopped taking all medications. I wanted to go to a neurologist but Doctors denied me the appointment! THEY DO NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS! This scares the crap out of me as I interpret this to mean there is something seriously wrong with me. Did I mention I’m scared? My life has gone from good to Hell . I’ve been a very healthy person up until Apotex experience.
I am now an old sick / disabled person, unable to work, broke, living at the moment to moment. I have lost my faith in a loving entity. I live like a recluse. The future terrifies me. I have lost everything that was dear to me, and am now in a state of sad, detached indifference. I can no longer act as if, or fake it, because I no longer believe I will make it.
I have cluster headaches, depression etc. I have tried to push myself these last couple of months, to be more alive, but I think this time I have met my match, and the last months have just sucked the life out of me. This benzo stuff is just too hard. I really no longer know if it is worth it.
I don’t have anyone to talk to about it. I can not talk (speech mechanism impairment, revolving train of thoughts etc.). I wish someone could help me.
1. One more example: AMONGST MY COUNTLESS PAINS I suffer from DRUGS INDUCED NEUROLOGICAL BACK PAINS .
My Doctors decided to wipe out my consciousness by very strong psychiatric drugs (which triggered adverse reactions of my cardiovascular system and other organs / processes) instead of addressing the source of my problems / pains.
Symptomatic back pain treatment is commonplace in medicine today. Medical science has not been very effective at curing many common back pain conditions. Most of the accepted treatments for back pain only provide relief from the symptoms, rather than attempt to correct the actual cause of the condition. Symptomatic treatments are fine if the condition is incurable, but if used for curable back pain, they are examples of bad medicine and poor science.
Some of these conditions are not able to be cured through medical treatment. The doctor will prescribe symptomatic relief as a way to improve the quality of the patient’s life.
Unfortunately, the majority of symptomatic treatments are used for patients that can be cured of all their pain. The use of prolonged symptomatic treatment for monetary gain is common in the medical industry. Personal injury mills are known for keeping a patient in extended care much longer than necessary. It is no wonder that the back pain epidemic continues to grow at an alarming rate. There are simply too many patients in treatment and not enough getting better…
Symptomatic treatment works to relieve the SYMPTOMS of the condition, rather than actually heal the underlying cause. Symptomatic treatment is the equivalent to adding a monthly quart of oil to a leaking engine, rather than fixing the actual leak. If no mechanic is available, or if the leak is too large to fix, then the monthly addition of oil is a good solution. However, if the leak is easily and inexpensively fixed, then adding the oil month after month is not advisable. Add to this scenario, the fact that the oil salesman is also the one who advises you that fixing the leak is not necessary. This is the same dishonest, profit motivated attitude displayed by greedy health care providers purveying symptomatic treatments to their patients. Think about it…..:)
1. Smoking bans -”MEDICATIONS”/DRUG BANS.
Smoking bans are public policies, including criminal laws and occupational safety and health regulations, which prohibit tobacco smoking in workplaces and/or other public spaces.
Legislation may also define smoking as more generally being the carrying or possessing of any lit tobacco product.
The Ontario government has passed a long awaited ban on smoking while driving with children under 16, following widely publicized discussions regarding the risk second hand smoke presents to children in enclosed areas.
Similarly- Nova Scotia, Yukon, Arkansas, California, Maine, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, South Australia and Tasmania have already banned smoking in motor vehicles with kids.
We as a society need to debated new ways to use the courts not only for example against tobacco companies / individuals, but most importantly to use them against PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY / Health Care Providers as well as against Law Firms /enablers of Pharmaceutical companies /Health Care Providers!
BESIDE Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, (2008), GOVERNMENTS MUST INTRODUCE NEW AND one of the most comprehensive LEGISLATIONS TO CONTROL PREDATORY PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARNAGE / crimes against Humanity ON SUCH IMMENSE SCALE, THAT COMPARED TOBACCO INDUSTRY LOOKS LIKE A WALK IN THE PARK.
Pharmaceutical Industry (“medications” / drugs / toxic chemicals – all of them are VERY toxic) is the chief cause of death and disease in today’s Society.
It is number 1 preventable killer in America (and not only) today!
Act/ Legislation must seek to eliminate direct to consumer advertisement .
It must hold PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY – ENTITY / Health Care Providers criminally responsible for drugs prescriptions and associated side effects / induced health problems / complications / degenerative /physiological / medical / psychological / hormonal changes etc.!
IT MUST BECOME AN OFFENCE TO SUBJECT INDIVIDUALS /SICK /AFFLICTED AND VERY /most wournable PEOPLE IN SOCIETY TO ANY PHARMACOLOGICAL /SURGICAL / TRIAL TREATMENTS WHICH IS NOT PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT WILL IMPROVE /ELIMINATE MEDICAL CONDITION, UNLESS IT IS DETERMINED, THAT MEDICAL CONDITION IS DESPERATE AND AWARDS DESPERATE MEASURES!
The legislation also MUST make it illegal to have PHARMACIES displaying pharmaceutical products on prominent locations in stores where they are sold!
Every person who fails to comply with the proposed prohibition would be guilty of an offence and subject to a set fine / IMPRISONMENT, restitution for all damages to subject individual etc.!
Governments / Society must work towards the passage of drugs free Society and advocate for the passage of provincial /federal protection legislation.!
The objectives must include: sustainment of “medications”/drugs free Strategy, the control of contraband products and protection from second-hand exposures.
For more info please look at my previous entries.
1. I have been thinking about my case, my struggle , my pains/ suffers/ my torment /my many denies by fraudulent system and so called “experts” and about my passion / dedication for/to change the criminal System of Labour Management etc.
Despitee all supporteing evidence they (WSiB and all Government Agencies) dismissed my Claim many times all over again, because I did not have any experts nor any Legal representation!
This is a conspiracy to commit fraud / crime against me.
This is very typical strategy adopted by WSiB / WCB .
The reports they generate contain very twisted information used to divert the facts and change them into fiction.
I believe , that I will bring justice to my Case!
I and the injured and abused working people of this country NEED and deserve JUSTICE!!
The average person dealing with the Workers’ Compensation system does not know their legal rights under the W.S.I.B. /WCB legislation.
Most individuals who have lost appeals, have older claims, or claims they believe have been closed by the W.S.I.B. / WCB often perceive that this is the end of the road.
This is not the case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Workers’ Compensation system as we know it has undergone significant legislative changes within the last decade. It appears as though the flavour of the system is much like the political party of the day!
This constantly changing system can lead to confusion and doubts in individual claims.
I (I.W.) DO NOT receive every bit of lost time payments, pain and suffering awards, wage loss awards, health care expenses, pensions, survivor benefits, supplements, retraining programs and applicable interest owing to me/them!!!!!!!
The average person with a compensation claim does not know the system well enough to know what they are entitled to under the law. Third party representation exists in order to help these individuals obtain what is rightfully theirs.
Lawmakers have recognized the need for third party representation, for this reason the Office of the Worker Advisor was created.
This government agency which is also funded by the W.S.I.B. /WCB has as their mandate to challenge the organization that funds them in order to obtain benefits for the injured worker. One might wonder if this does not present itself as a conflict of interest? – WELL, IT DOES BIG TIME!!!!.
IT DID TORTURE /DEFROUD ME ALONG WITH MY FORMER EMPLOYER APOTEX AND ACCOMPLICES.
No one needs to tell I.W. what it’s like to be an injured worker in Ontario /CANADA and have “the system” come crashing down on them (you/me) when they / you/ I try to fight for their / your/ my rights.
An injured worker knows first-hand how injuries in the workplace can affect not only the worker, but also their family and loved ones as well.
When it happens, I.W. does not know what to do. He/she spends the time on medical rehabilitation and sorting through a complicate claim for Workers Compensation—a difficult task because he/she does not understand the laws and how they worked.
Every step of the way I. W. has to figure out what to do on his/her own.
I .W. is consumed with learning / FIGHTING the system.
Unfortunately, the system lets I.W(s) down. Fortunately for thousands of injured workers —they do not give up.
Every time I think about how I was /am treated after my accident, I get just enough energy to fuel my passion for change!.
Please understand, that due to my disabilities / neurological impairments I do not have any TIME LIMITATIONS FOR APPEALS!!!!!!!
ALL THOSE site assessments commissioned by the employer in response to my claim are BOLONI / are bullshit!
So called ” permissible limits /standards”, are the medium/ compromise in between all interested parties (Unions, Government Agencies, Employers, Advocates, Environmental Groups, Health Industry , WSiB/WCB etc., etc.).
That information does not address INDIVIDUAL ‘s reactions to exposures and that is very WRONG!
EVERY INDIVIDUAL/ A HUMAN BEING REACTS DIFFERENTLY TO CERTAIN CHEMICALS / ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES / STIMULAS.
SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE RESISTANT / NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO CHEMICAL ASSAULTS, WHILE OTHERS DO REACT VERY NEGATIVELY TO TRACES OF SOME CHEMICALS / COMPOUNDS AND WITH MINUTE /TRACES EXPOSURES CAN SUFFER DRAMATIC ADVERSE REACTIONS AND /OR DEATH! (I EXPERIENCED MASSIVE EXPOSURES ON DAILY BASES FOR 6.5 YEARS)!
AN EXAMPLE REPRESENT PEANUTS.
PERSON ALLERGIC TO PEANUTS CAN DIE BY FOR EXAMPLE TOUCHING WITH A TONGUE FOOD PRODUCTS CONTAINING MINUTE / TRACES OF PINUTS OR PEANUTS PRODUCTS.
VERY THE SAME IS WITH OTHER TOXINS WHICH ARE OFTEN MUCH MORE REACTIVE BY BEING SYNTHESIZED IN VERY ELABORATE WAYS etc.
IN REALITY NO ONE CAN STATE, THAT OTHER PERSON DID NOT SUSTAIN ANY ADVERSE REACTIONS / PERMANENT CHANGES /DISABILITIES JUST BECAUSE QUANTITY OF EXPOSURE WERE BELOW SOME “STANDARDS”.
Regards,
Apotex’s/ WSiB’s victim
PS:
Peanut allergy is a type of food allergy distinct from nut allergies. It is a type 1 hypersensitivity reaction to dietary substances from peanuts causing an overreaction of the immune system which may lead to severe physical symptoms.
The most severe allergies in general can result in anaphylaxis, an emergency situation requiring immediate attention and treatment with epinephrine.
THAT IS WHY ON THE FOODS WE DO HAVE ON LABELS A WARNING ABOUT PEANUT CONTENT IF ANY.
The smell of the peanuts is enough to trigger a peanut allergy and send a Person to the emergency room with breathing problems.
PEANUTS ARE NOW A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
Researchers are working on several fronts to prevent peanut allergies and limit the potentially deadly reactions they can cause.
People with food allergies usually have an antibody called immunoglobulin E in their blood.
It’s estimated more than 150,000 Canadians suffer from peanut allergies. About two per cent of people can have an anaphylactic reaction to an allergen ( INCLUDING PCBs AND /OR ANY OF THE CHEMICALS YOU WERE EXPOSED TO AND WHICH ARE IN REPORTS YOU DO HAVE ON HAND), and peanut allergies account for 50 to 100 deaths in the United States every year.
Anaphylactic shock is an explosive overreaction of the body’s immune system. It starts with swelling, difficulty breathing, cramps, vomiting and diarrhea, and can proceed to coma and death etc., etc., etc.
Regards,
Apotex’s victim
1. I am glad, that by posting my entries, even in small way I can help /assist / support all I.W.
We I.W.(s) do have understanding of each other and together we are stronger and more capable.
WELL, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AN ACCIDENT?
In general, an unplanned, unexpected, and undesigned (not purposefully caused) event which occurs suddenly and causes:
* injury or loss,
* a decrease in value of the resources,
*an increase in liabilities. etc.etc., etc.
As a technical term ‘accident’ does not have a clearly defined legal meaning.
In insurance terminology, an accident is the events which is not deliberately caused, and which is not inevitable.
IN my CASE I am FACED WITH -“chemical accident” or “chemical incident”!
The terms “chemical accident” or “chemical incident” refer to an event resulting in exposures or release of a substance or substances hazardous to human health and/or the environment in the short or LONG TERM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Such events include fires, explosions, LEAKAGES or RELEASES ( of any form) of toxic or hazardous materials that can cause to people illness, injury, disability or death.
While chemical accidents may occur whenever toxic materials are stored, transported or used, the most severe accidents are industrial accidents, involving major chemical manufacturing and storage facilities. The most significant chemical accidents in recorded history was the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India, in which more than 3,000 people were killed after a highly toxic VAPOUR , (methyl isocyanate), was released at a Union Carbide pesticides factory.
Efforts to prevent accidents range from improved safety systems to fundamental changes in chemical use and manufacture, referred to as primary prevention or inherent safety.
The law also requires companies / EMPLOYERS to make publicly available information about their storage of toxic chemicals / PRESENCE OF CONTAMINANTS / CHEMICALS AT THE WORK ENVIRONMENT etc..
In my case my employer TorPharm Apotex concealed this info, what makes my employer liable for WILLFUL, WANTON, MALICIOUS CRIMINAL negligence as well as torture/ terror by denying me all kind of help / compensation for very long and pending period of time etc .
We have to consider short- and long-term disability, morbidity and mortality OF INDIVIDUALS and in the population exposed to toxins.
The possible long-term consequences must be considered / investigated with mortality and cancer etc.
Chemical exposure in the workplace can led to long-term illness and in the worst case death of unsuspecting employees.
Since I have become ill due to chemical exposure in the workplace, I do have the right to hold the employer responsible for damages.
Chemicals should be handled with care and /or have to be secured, especially in working environments. There is no excuse for negligence of an employer.
I began to experience out of the ordinary symptoms / sicknes/impairments while employed!!!!!!!
I tryed to be aware of the chemicals that surrounded me in my workplace and learn about the impact they can have on my /employees health, but Company did not disclose any info about processed drugs.
Because chemicals cannot always be detected, I DID NOT even realize what has happened.
Unfortunately the exposures did the DAMAGE to my body.
A number of people may be held accountable for products and environments that are harmful to employees.
Some of the most commonly sued tortfeasors in chemical exposure cases include:
*The actual employer – the business for which the injured party worked during the exposure is usually named in a suit because they have responsibilities under the law to maintain a safe workplace.
*Manufacturers – A product that is manufactured with a harmful substance can be sued if the harmful substance is introduced to a work environment and a person is injured as a result. An example is when products with asbestos are found in a work environment. The manufacturers of the products to which a victim is exposed will likely to be included in a future lawsuit. ( in your case manufacturer of the ballasts) etc .
*Other parties who could be responsible – an attorney will name every conceivable party in a lawsuit in the interest of getting compensation for an injured client.
A personal injury attorney familiar with the law in the area of chemical workplace exposure can assist you/me with holding an employer or other negligent parties responsible.
Many employers will handle these cases outside of court to keep the scandal from receiving widespread public attention.
This can be good for injured victims who wish to be compensated for medical expenses, lost wages and other expenses relating to their exposure to harmful chemicals – as well as punitive damages for torture / pain and suffer/ family disintegration etc.
MY LONG TERM EXPOSURE IT IS AN ACCIDENT AT WORK!!!!!!!!
The Safest and Most Effective OTC Painkillers…….:)
NON IS SAFE!
ALL ARE TOXIC!
Which pill works best for what ails you?
With more than 75 percent of us taking over-the-counter painkillers at least once a month ,
it’s key to know the safest and most effective choice.
EXAMPLE: Acetaminophen (found in Tylenol)
Best (?)/ POPULAR for:
Fever
Mild to moderate musculoskeletal pain
Mild to moderate back pain
Mild to moderate headache
Pain-signal reducer
How it functions IS NOT well understood, but acetaminophen may block COX-3, a protein that helps send out the body’s pain signals. It’s not as potent as some other OTC painkillers such as naproxen and ibuprofen, so it’s typically effective only for low-intensity aches. If you’ve had alcohol in the past 24 hours (or plan to), hit the brakes: Too much acetaminophen and alcohol can damage the liver.
An advisory committee to the FDA has proposed lowering the maximum daily dose from 4 grams (which may be too much for some people). ABOUT TIME!
A DECISION MADE DUE TO MANY Casualties!
WHAT ABOUT PRESCRIPTION DRUGS?
ALMOST KILLED ME!- AND DOCTORS / Representatives in Government Agencies WERE LAUGHING!
If you feel weak or “off” after use, see a doc.
Regards,
Apotex’s / WSiB’s – GOVERNMENT’s OF ONTARIO VICTIM
