Am I the only one who thinks that the legal tests in clinical negligence are sometimes harder to understand than they should be?
The case law on my favourite topic – Bolam and other tests for breach of duty – is littered with confusion. And it strikes me that Material Contribution is too.
The But For test is, thankfully, beautifully simple and easy to understand. But what if your experts can’t tell whether the outcome would probably have been avoided or the same and you have to use the causation test of Material Contribution ?
The case of Davies v Frimley Health NHSFT 2021 EWHC 169 QB earlier this year is a recent example of the Court addressing both tests on causation in clinical negligence.