extreme lack of attention to medical care
Gross negligence and it is usually due to deviation from the reasonable standard of care.
The standard of a duty of reasonable care is determined based on what a hypothetical reasonable person would do in similar circumstances, taking into account factors such as the foreseeability of harm, the relationship between the parties, and the nature of the activity involved. Courts consider what actions would be considered reasonable and prudent under the specific circumstances of a case.
This is called the "reasonable person standard" or "standard of care." It means that a health worker will not be held liable for harm caused to a patient if their actions were consistent with what a reasonable person in their position would have done. This standard helps protect health workers from legal liability when they have acted responsibly and followed accepted professional guidelines.
Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful. The standard of ordinary negligence is what conduct one expects from the proverbial "reasonable person". By analogy, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being "gross".
Breach of duty refers to failing to meet the standard of care expected in a particular situation. The standard of care is the level of care and skill expected of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. A breach of duty occurs when someone falls short of meeting this standard.
Understanding the applicable standard of care is essential in determining if a legal duty has been breached. The standard of care is the amount and type of care which must be exercised by a person in a given situation. A breach of duty (of care) occurs when a person's conduct falls below the relevant standard. See related link for an example.
The 4 D's of medical malpractice are the basic elements you need to prove to win a malpractice suit. These are very similar to the elements of tort law in general. The law article below goes into each negligence element. The four D's of medical malpractice as established in a doctor-patient relationship: DUTY of care DEVIATION from the standard of care DAMAGE to the patient The damage must have occurred DIRECTLY as a result of the deviation from the standard of care
Reasonable care
The standard of care is the level of care and caution that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances to prevent harm or injury to others. It is used as a benchmark in determining negligence in legal cases.
I am not a lawyer, but in a recent discussion with my attourney she stated that the difference between simple and gross negligence was that "simple" was unintensional, showed no intent. "Gross" basically equates to showing more intent or flat out stupidity.
Whatever the jury considers reasonable for a person of ordinary care (in the jurisdiction) to have done (or not done) under similar circumstances. If everyone here'bouts knows something oughta be done, then it's the reasonable person standard, even if nobody elsewheres would do it that way.
The standard of care can be proven by showing that the healthcare provider acted in a manner consistent with what a reasonable provider with similar training and expertise would do in the same or similar circumstances. This can be demonstrated through expert testimony, medical guidelines, protocols, and case law that establish the accepted practices and standards within the healthcare community. Additionally, the patient's medical records and any other relevant evidence can be used to show whether the standard of care was met.