The Claimant’s late wife had given birth at the Defendant hospital and returned home the following day. The baby remained in the hospital’s special care unit. Six days later the Claimant’s wife had complained of headaches in the mornings. The following day she was too unwell to attend hospital. She subsequently suffered fits and fell unconscious. The following day she passed away of cerebral vinous sinus thrombosis. The hospital admitted breach of duty and accepted that had she been admitted for ...
|
The general practitioner's failure to immediately refer a patient suffering from bilateral sciatica to a surgeon was not negligent. On the facts, a surgeon would not have been negligent in not admitting the patient for surgery, and so it followed that the general practitioner could not be negligent for failing to make a same-day referral.
|
When dispensing a prescription, a pharmacist was required to consider whether the medication prescribed was suitable for the patient; where there had been a change to the strength or dose of the patient's medication, the question to be asked was whether the prescription really represented what the doctor had intended to prescribe or whether it was a mistake. Failure to question, where necessary, the correctness of the prescription with either the doctor or the patient was conduct below that whic ...
|
On the balance of probabilities, the cause of the injuries sustained by the claimant at her birth was a stroke rather than hypoxia. The stroke had occurred before the time when the NHS trust ought to have induced delivery and therefore causation could not be established.
|
The judge had been entitled not to exercise his discretion to disapply the limitation period in a case where the claimant was suing a psychiatrist, as a result of an allegedly negligent diagnosis, seven years out of time.
|
On the evidence, a general practitioner was not liable in negligence to the claimant for failing to diagnose a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage and refer her to hospital as she had presented with unusual symptoms. Even if there had been negligence, it was likely that the claimant would have suffered a stroke in any event.
|
Ankle operation – Erroneous finding on issue of causation. A judge had erred, in reaching the conclusion that negligent delay in carrying out an operation on an injured ankle had not been causative of long term disablement, because he had failed to consider whether the likelihood of the culpable delay in treatment had rendered the operation less likely to succeed.
|
Damage suffered during hysterectomy – Negligence not established. The NHS trust was not liable in negligence in respect of vein and nerve damage sustained by a patient during a hysterectomy as it had undertaken the appropriate courses of action when carrying out the procedure.
|
A sufficient relationship of proximity existed to justify the imposition of a duty of care between a family seeking damages for wrongful birth and a third party laboratory that had prepared a sample of tissue for pre-natal DNA analysis on behalf of the defendant NHS trust.
|
Hospital doctors had not been negligent in their treatment of a baby who had sustained a rare brain condition shortly after his birth.
|
| 1 2 3 |