Rodney Crossman v St George’s Healthcare Trust [2016] EWHC 2878 (QB) ; Chester v Afshar revisited

This blog post by Lois Aldred considers the decision in Crossman v St George’s Hospital Trust which raises interesting issues relating to the applicability of the decision in Chester v Afshar.

The Facts

The Claimant was a 63-year-old man who sought treatment for a numb arm and painful, stiff neck. Investigations revealed widespread degenerative changes and constitutional narrowing of the spinal canal.  He was referred to a neurosurgeon, Professor Papadopoulos, who advised a conservative treatment plan that included physiotherapy for three months with an outpatient review with him thereafter. Continue reading “Rodney Crossman v St George’s Healthcare Trust [2016] EWHC 2878 (QB) ; Chester v Afshar revisited”

Bolam under attack: Muller v Kings College Hospital and Webster v Burton Hospitals

This post considering the standing of the Bolam principle is by David Sanderson of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

Two judgments handed down this month explore the boundaries of the Bolam principle and limit its application.  In the first, Kerr J doubted that Bolam was apposite where the court is concerned, not with a choice between two courses of treatment, but instead with a missed diagnosis.  In the second, the Court of Appeal rejected the judge’s application of Bolam, in circumstances where a patient had been entitled to information about risks before deciding between treatment options. Continue reading “Bolam under attack: Muller v Kings College Hospital and Webster v Burton Hospitals”

Merrix v. Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 346 (QB); Costs budgeting

This is a post by Andrew Roy and Alex Carrington of 12 King’s Bench Walk

An important decision in the changing world of cost budgeting.

Facts :

The Appellant bought a claim against the Respondent for damages for clinical negligence. Proceedings were commenced and the Appellant’s budget was approved at a CCMC. Following the exchange of lay and witness evidence, but before the parties had prepare for the trial, the parties compromised the claim. The Appellant produced a costs bill that was less than the total approved budget (unsurprising given the matter had settled before trial). Continue reading “Merrix v. Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 346 (QB); Costs budgeting”

The Discount Rate Decision: Right or Wrong, Gilt Edged or Double Edged?

In this post Henry Charles of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the implications of the recent change to the discount rate.

Minus 0.75%.

The initial reaction: claimant nirvana …and if so for how long?

The Lord Chancellor’s statement heralded the new rate with the assertion that minus 0.75% was the only answer on a gilts based assessment: Continue reading “The Discount Rate Decision: Right or Wrong, Gilt Edged or Double Edged?”