Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Doctors, Defamation and Damages: Medical Practitioners Fighting Back.
J Law Med. 2019 Oct; 27(1):20-28.JL

Abstract

In three judgments in favour of New South Wales medical practitioners between 2017 and 2019 the Supreme Court awarded ordinary and aggravated damages for harm done to professional reputations. The decisions in Al Muderis v Duncan (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 726, O'Neill v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 655 and Tavakoli v Imisides (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 7 are considered in the context of international decisions and analysis of doctors taking defamation action arising from online publications. Reflections are provided about the repercussions of the phenomenon, its commercial justification and the inhibitions that should be experienced before defamation and injurious falsehood actions are taken by medical practitioners.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Barrister, Crockett Chambers, Melbourne; Professorial Fellow of Law and Psychiatry, University of Melbourne; Adjunct Professor of Forensic Medicine, Monash University.Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

31682338

Citation

Freckelton, Ian, and Tina Popa. "Doctors, Defamation and Damages: Medical Practitioners Fighting Back." Journal of Law and Medicine, vol. 27, no. 1, 2019, pp. 20-28.
Freckelton I, Popa T. Doctors, Defamation and Damages: Medical Practitioners Fighting Back. J Law Med. 2019;27(1):20-28.
Freckelton, I., & Popa, T. (2019). Doctors, Defamation and Damages: Medical Practitioners Fighting Back. Journal of Law and Medicine, 27(1), 20-28.
Freckelton I, Popa T. Doctors, Defamation and Damages: Medical Practitioners Fighting Back. J Law Med. 2019;27(1):20-28. PubMed PMID: 31682338.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Doctors, Defamation and Damages: Medical Practitioners Fighting Back. AU - Freckelton,Ian, AU - Popa,Tina, PY - 2019/11/5/entrez PY - 2019/11/5/pubmed PY - 2019/11/13/medline KW - damages KW - defamation KW - honestly held opinions KW - medical practitioners KW - tort of injurious falsehood SP - 20 EP - 28 JF - Journal of law and medicine JO - J Law Med VL - 27 IS - 1 N2 - In three judgments in favour of New South Wales medical practitioners between 2017 and 2019 the Supreme Court awarded ordinary and aggravated damages for harm done to professional reputations. The decisions in Al Muderis v Duncan (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 726, O'Neill v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 655 and Tavakoli v Imisides (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 7 are considered in the context of international decisions and analysis of doctors taking defamation action arising from online publications. Reflections are provided about the repercussions of the phenomenon, its commercial justification and the inhibitions that should be experienced before defamation and injurious falsehood actions are taken by medical practitioners. SN - 1320-159X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/31682338/Doctors,_Defamation_and_Damages:_Medical_Practitioners_Fighting_Back DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -
Try the Free App:
Prime PubMed app for iOS iPhone iPad
Prime PubMed app for Android
Prime PubMed is provided
free to individuals by:
Unbound Medicine.