In this post Ted Cunningham of 12KBW examines the recent High Court decision in NILUJAN RAJATHEEPAN v BARKING, HAVERING AND REDBRIDGE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST  EWHC 716 (QB). The case highlights the importance of proper and effective communication between medical professionals and patients who do not have a good grasp of English. In circumstances where medical professionals believe that they have communicated effectively, that belief must be objectively reasonable.
In this post Rachit Buch of 12KBW examines the recent decision of Cockerill J in Razumas v Ministry of Justice  EWHC 215 (QB), a case concerning two distinct issues: (i) the liability of the MOJ for negligence arising out of healthcare provided in prisons and (ii) fundamental dishonesty in relation to clinical negligence claims.
In this post Farhana Mukith discusses the case of Shaw v (1) Kovac & (2) University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 1028, in which the Court of Appeal considered whether compensation for the unlawful invasion of a patient’s personal rights ought to be recognised as a separate and free-standing cause of action.
In this post Tim Petts of 12KBW considers the widely reported decision of Jay J in ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd, a sad case involving the implantation of an embryo without the consent of the father (who had previously separated from the mother) resulting in the birth of a child he did not want.
In this post Angela Frost of 12KBW discusses the recent decision of Foskett J in Macaulay v Dr Abdul Karim & Croydon Health Services NHS Trust  EWHC 1795 (QB), yet another case involving the delayed identification of sepsis in a busy A&E department. The recent case of Darnley v Croydon NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 151 was also considered and distinguished.
Continue reading “Macaulay v Dr Abdul Karim & Croydon Health Services NHS Trust  EWHC 1795 (QB): Patient ‘slips through the net’ in A&E and loses a limb, toes and fingers as a result of sepsis.”
In this post Vanessa Cashman of 12KBW discusses the recent decision of HHJ Graham Wood QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Tracey Giles v Alexandra Chambers, a rare reported case involving cosmetic surgery.
The Claimant underwent VASER liposuction removal of fat from her thighs and buttocks at the Defendant’s private clinic.
In this post Rachit Buch of 12KBW discusses the Court of Appeal’s recent reversal of Nicol J’s decision to strike out a claim on the basis that a doctor did not owe a duty of care to disclose a patient’s hereditary disease to his child.
Overturning the decision the Court of Appeal held that it was arguable that medical practitioners could be liable for failing to inform family members of a diagnosis where there was definite, reliable and critical medical information as would be the case in clinical genetics.
In FB v Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 334, the Court of Appeal overturned a first-instance decision that a junior doctor had not been negligent when examining a one-year-old girl and taking a history from her parents in the early hours of the morning. Dr R, the senior house officer (SHO) who saw her in A&E, reached a view that FB was probably suffering from a chest infection and discharged her. Tragically, FB returned to hospital that evening, severely unwell, and was thereafter diagnosed with pneumococcal meningitis and multiple brain infarcts. She now has permanent brain damage.
Jackson LJ looked at the general principles of what the law should expect from young professionals near the start of their career. Continue reading “FB v Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 334; The spectrum of seniority for professionals in negligence claims”
In RE (a minor) v Huddersfield and Calderdale NHS Foundation Trust  EWHC 824 (QB) the infant claimant suffered a brain injury during her protracted birth. Her mother and grandmother sustained psychiatric injuries following sight of the baby, who was born in an extremely poor condition.
Co-editor of the 12KBW Clinical Negligence blog Rory Badenoch considers the recent Court of Appeal case of Barnett, one of the rare cases in which a judge’s inability to resolve an issue of fact had been justified (Stephens v Cannon  EWCA Civ 222 and Verlander v Devon Waste Management  EWCA Civ 835 applied). Also of note was the Court of Appeal’s criticism of the brevity of the judgment at first instance. This criticism was held to be of particular importance where a key issue is decided on the basis that a claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proof.