See Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1 The common law general rule is that “the law does not grant remedies for the effects – whether psychological, physical or financial – of the death or injury of another person.” (para 48) Therefore, to establish a claim in the tort of negligence, a secondary […]
Read More… from Secondary Victim Claims following a Paul accident
It has taken the Supreme Court eight months to decide what to do about claims for psychiatric injury by secondary victims in clinical negligence cases. By a majority of six to one they have decided that nervous shock has no place in clinical negligence cases: “We are not able to accept that the responsibilities of […]
This is another decision from Mr Justice Ritchie which, like CNZ v Bath, focusses on consent in an acute setting rather than the more leisurely context of the outpatient clinic. The Claimant suffered spinal cord injury as a result of the penetration of her spinal cord by an anaesthetic needle. An epidural had been recommended […]
Read More… from Parsons v. Isle of Wight – The importance of consent
If you ever worry that you find it hard to get your head around material contribution then stop. You are not alone. The Court of Appeal has now given welcome clarification and explained: That material contribution causation applies both to divisible and indivisible injuries. That this area of law “has been bedevilled by apparent inconsistency […]
Read More… from Why material contribution applies both to divisible and indivisible injuries
McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board Mr McCulloch died in April 2012 after suffering a cardiac arrest. He had reported chest pain and received treatment at Forth Valley Hospital. His treating cardiologist, Dr Catherine Labinjoh, decided that his presentation was inconsistent with pericarditis. He was discharged a few days later, but then readmitted. Dr Labinjoh […]
Read More… from McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board – Montgomery watered down?