Fitness to Drive Post Stroke: A Physician's Perspective
Fitness to Drive Post Stroke: A Physician's Perspective Fitness to Drive Post Stroke: A Physician's Perspective
• A neurologist gave expert testimony that the regular practice of a neurologist was to notify the Ministry of Transportation of patients suffering from seizure disorders but it was uncommon to do so in the case of other neurological problems.
RESULT • A jury found that both doctors were negligent in failing to report the patient’s condition and the family physician was negligent in the manner in which he assessed the patient prior to permitting him to resume driving. i The jury’s opinion was that the physicians’ negligence contributed to the motor vehicle accident.
- Page 1 and 2: FITNESS TO DRIVE POST STROKE A Phys
- Page 3 and 4: What does the Legislation have to s
- Page 5 and 6: What does the Legislation have to s
- Page 7 and 8: What does the C.P.S.O. have to say?
- Page 9 and 10: What does the C.M.P.A. have to say?
- Page 11 and 12: What does the C.M.P.A. have to say?
- Page 13 and 14: National Medical Standards • Deve
- Page 16 and 17: The Process • Incoming reports sc
- Page 18 and 19: The Process • Medical Review Sect
- Page 20 and 21: Common Problems 1. Transient ischem
- Page 22 and 23: Stroke • Following an event resul
- Page 24 and 25: Cerebral aneurysm. • Aneurysms th
- Page 26 and 27: Seizures Type of Seizure • Single
- Page 28 and 29: Vision • Acuity: Corrected binocu
- Page 30 and 31: Factors to consider when assessing
- Page 32 and 33: Question to MTO With respect to the
- Page 34 and 35: Response A driver who is reported b
- Page 36 and 37: CASE REPORT
- Page 38 and 39: • The neurologist reviewed the pa
- Page 40 and 41: • The family doctor and neurologi
- Page 44 and 45: RESPONSIBILITY • Patient 40% •
- Page 46: LESSONS • Courts unmoved by expla
RESULT<br />
• A jury found that both doc<strong>to</strong>rs were negligent<br />
in failing <strong>to</strong> report the patient’s condition and<br />
the family physician was negligent in the<br />
manner in which he assessed the patient<br />
prior <strong>to</strong> permitting him <strong>to</strong> resume driving.<br />
i<br />
The jury’s opinion was that the physicians’<br />
negligence contributed <strong>to</strong> the mo<strong>to</strong>r vehicle<br />
accident.
Change language