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.

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.

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.