D
Dr Chang Chew Ming
Person 1 case
Dr Chang Chew Ming appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
wa-22ncvc-971-12-2019
Yong Har Leng v 1. ) Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dr Helmy Haja Mydin 3. ) Dr Chang Chew Ming 4. ) Nurses At Home Sdn Bhd
MYHC 16 November 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Dr Chang Chew Ming
Dr Chang Chew Ming appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning November 2025 to November 2025. Dr Chang Chew Ming appeared as defendant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Dr Chang Chew Ming?
Dr Chang Chew Ming appears in 1 published judgment from November 2025 to November 2025. Most commonly as defendant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
It has been alleged in this action that the plaintiff's family arranged for care to be provided at home to a patient through an arrangement made between the defendants, who are two doctors, the hospital where the doctors worked, and a company providing home nursing assistance. The plaintiff claims that too little was done to ensure that the patient with special needs was discharged home in safe hands, resulting in the patient's death after two episodes of oxygen desaturation. 1 The defendants oppose this action. According to them, the patient died at home rather than while under the doctors' care. In addition, the hospital was not required to train nurses to care for the deceased patient at home. A nursing care company also claims to have followed the care plan in accordance with its duties and responsibilities. 1 After hearing evidence from all the parties involved, the court finds that the plaintiff has not presented any evidence that the first defendant has approved the fourth defendant's ability to handle and care for the deceased. There is no written or oral agreement between the first defendant and the fourth defendant regarding the first defendant's training of the fourth defendant's nurses. 1 As regards the second and third defendants, the court finds that the doctors cannot be held responsible for this death. The deceased's condition had improved between the time of his admission and his discharge, indicating that the second and third defendants were not negligent at that particular material time. Also, based on the plaintiff's expert witness, the deceased died from a chronic lung condition manifested in recurring pneumothoraxes. There seems to be no connection between this and the allegation of failure to inform about the possibility of tracheostomy blockage. 1 Meanwhile, the court finds that the fourth defendant had adequately discharged its duties under the care plan provided to the deceased. The fourth defendant cannot be held to the same standards as licensed healthcare practitioners in terms of medical negligence. In terms of contractual obligations, the fourth defendant performed its work in accordance with what it was hired to do. By imposing liability, it amounts to adding extra and additional duties that they aren't even supposed to provide. 1 In light of all the above findings, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed while the first defendant's counterclaim for medical bill is allowed. 1