{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013059701492537313, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.202312138728324, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Epilepsy and medical practitioner duty of care in an employment context.

A medical practitioner who consults with persons with epilepsy has imposed upon him or her a duty of care in accordance with current Australian legal authority expressed or cited in Rogers v Whitaker, but may also have such a duty imposed in a number of circumstances not involving a treating doctor relationship. The requirement for sufficient proximity in legal terms exists where the relationship is not (or is) a standard doctor-patient relationship, but once duty and proximity have been established, it is open to argument, and possibly to future judicial determination, that a higher standard of care may exist in relation to persons with epilepsy, although the law has yet to recognise differing standards. Whilst case law involving claims for damages by workers with epilepsy against medical practitioners is sparse, considerable scope appears to exist for the novel extension of the duty of care requirements of doctors in employment matters involving employees with and without epilepsy.