Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018]

Click here for the Supreme Court Press Summary.

Facts:

Mr Darnley was assaulted and hit on the head, so went to A&E in Croydon at 20:30.
The receptionist on duty told him falsely that despite him feeling ill and weak, he would likely have to wait for 4-5 hours before being seen to.
The real wait time for a head injury is likely to be 30 minutes.
Mr Darnley went home as he felt too unwell to wait and needed to sleep.
After 30 minutes at home, his sister rang an ambulance as he was getting distressed.
Ambulance took him back to the hospital and then was transferred for an operation at another hospital.
Mr Darnley suffered permanent brain damage as a result.
He is suing the NHS because had the receptionist told him a correct wait time, he would not have gone home and would have been in hospital earlier.

Problems:

Could non-medical support staff of a hospital be treated like doctors in regards to duty of care?
When the receptionist gave a wrong wait time, was it so wrong as to breach her duty of care?
Was it foreseeable that Mr Darnley would leave after being told that the wait is so long?

Decision:

Yes, the receptionist did have a duty of care and therefore the NHS was liable.
She breached her duty because the wait time she should have said was 30 minutes and Mr Darnley would have stayed.

9th Oct 2019 0

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015]

Click here for the Supreme Courts Press Summary.

Facts:

Mrs Montgomery was a diabetic woman, and therefore likely to have a large baby.
The hospital was aware of this throughout her pregnancy.
There is a 9-10% chance of shoulder dystocia (shoulders being too wide to pass through the pelvis).
Usually women opt for a caesarean section but this was not discussed with Mrs Montgomery.
During delivery shoulder dystocia occurred and the baby was born with severe disabilities.
Mrs Montgomery is claiming a breach of duty because the doctor negligently failed to warn her of the risks involved with vaginal birth.

Problems:

Was the doctor negligent when they didn’t make Mrs Montgomery aware of the risks involved?
Should Mrs Montgomery have been able to choose how her baby was delivered when presented with the facts?

Decision:

The courts found that the doctor was negligent.
Mrs Montgomery should have been made aware of other options available to her.
Courts found that had the breach of duty not occurred and a caesarean section was executed, the child would have been born free of any disabilities.

13th Jan 2019 0

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]

Facts:

Mr Bolam was undergoing electro convulsive therapy as part of a mental illness.
Doctor did not give any relaxant drugs and as a result Mr Bolam suffered a serious fracture.
If given relaxants, there a small risk of death. If not given, there a small risk of fracture.
Mr Bolam is claiming that the doctors were in breach of duty by NOT issuing relaxants or using a manual restraint to reduce risks.

Problems:

To prove breach of duty Mr Bolam has to prove that other doctors would have acted differently to the doctors on the day.

Decision:

The hospital was not liable because expert witnesses all opposed the use of relaxants.
They also opposed the use of a manual restraint because that increases the risk of fracture.

13th Jan 2019 0

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969]

Facts:

Mr Barnett attended hospital because he had severe stomach pains and was vomiting after drinking tea.
The doctor on duty sent him home and recommended he see his GP.
Mr Barnett died 5 hours later at home, from arsenic poisoning.
It was later found out that even if the doctor did act, there was nothing he could do to save Mr Barnett.

Problems:

Could the doctor be charged as negligent regardless despite there being nothing that could be done?

Decision:

The courts decided that the doctor was not negligent because even though he had a duty of care, and had breached that duty, causation could not be proven as on the balance of probabilities, he was going to die anyway.

13th Jan 2019 0

JAH v Dr Burne, Devonshire, Jackson, Yeovil District Hospital and NHS Foundation Trust [2018]

Facts:

The claimant (JAH) had gone to A&E because she had lost feeling in her leg, was seen and after no action was taken, left for home.
Within the next few months, her problem persisted and sought medical advice from three different GP’s, all of whom knew her situation well.
In the coming weeks the claimant visited hospital a few more times.
A blood clot formed in her arm as a result of undiagnosed illness and required her left arm to be amputated.
Proceeding her arm amputation her condition deteriorated so quickly in her leg that too was forced to be amputated.

Problems:

Should any/all of the GP’s have spotted the problems that resulted in the claimant’s amputations?
If they are liable, who is more liable and what is the percentage split?
Should the hospitals have done more when she was there?

Decision:

The courts found that only one of the GP’s were negligent and that was because during a visit before the claimants amputations, the GP should have referred her for immediate review.
As this did not happen, the arm was unnecessarily lost.
The leg was found to have been irrecoverable in any case.
The other GP’s were not negligent because at the time that they assessed the claimant, she did not need further medical intervention.
She was awarded £150,000 in damages for her lost arm.

13th Jan 2019 0

Williams v Bermuda Hospital Board [2016]

Click here for the Supreme Court’s Press Summary.

Facts:

Mr Williams attended hospital for abdominal pains.
A CT scan was ordered at 13:10 but not performed until 17:27.
The scan results were not read until 19:30.
By which time Mr Williams’ appendix had ruptured and pus was coursing through his body and causing damage to his heart and lungs.
He is claiming that had the scan and results not taken as long as they did, he would not have suffered as much as he did.

Problems:

Even though the correct course of action was taken, was the delay unjustified and could it be proven that this delay caused more damage?

Decision:

The courts found that the delay was so severe that it had definitely contributed to the injury sustained by Mr Williams.
He was awarded $60,000 in damages.

13th Jan 2019 1

Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]

This is the only case that isn’t to do with medical negligence but it is integral to understanding Duty of Care as it’s where the test originated.

Facts:

Caparo, an investor, purchased shares in a company that Dickman had done the accounts for.
Caparo ended up losing money as Dickman’s accounts were negligent and the company wasn’t as profitable as first thought.

Problems:

Could Caparo hold Dickman liable for loss of money due to negligent accounts despite the two parties not in contract with one another?

Decision:

No, because Dickman had no duty of care obligation to Caparo.
Duty of care branch was not satisfied.
The two parties were not in contract with each other, there was no relationship.

13th Jan 2019 0